Ashley Moran wrote:
On 3 Sep 2007, at 15:37, David Chelimsky wrote:
But it is an interesting idea that we should stay open to. Perhaps
more compelling reasons for such a change will appear in the future.
I like the sound of .spec in a way. It shortens the filenames which
is always a bonus for TM users. I can see the issue with file
associations, but it's easy enough to change these for TextMate.
(Although, allegedly, there are some Ruby developers that don't use
TextMate.)
In favour of .spec, Rake has its own extension (.rake). You could
argue that RSpec is not much more tied to Ruby code than Rake is.
Ruby isn't the only language where BDD is being used. sheep_spec.rb says
to me: this is a behaviour spec(ification) in Ruby for a sheep.
SheepSpec.java or SheepSpec.cs says the same for Java or C-hash.
If we come up with a programming language-independent way of
representing specs, then I'm all for a .spec suffix. (Perhaps the
specdoc descriptions might be something along those lines.)
Ashley
Cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
