On 10/18/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > El 18/10/2007, a las 10:33, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Take a look at examples/story/calculator.rb to see what's going on.
> > >
> > > Needs docs!!!!
> > >
> > > Thoughts welcome.
> >
> > Could this:
> >
> > step_matcher(:given, "an addend of $addend") do |addend|
> > @adder ||= Adder.new
> > @adder << addend.to_i
> > end
> >
> > step_matcher(:when, "they are added") do
> > @sum = @adder.sum
> > end
> >
> > step_matcher(:then, "the sum should be $sum") do |sum|
> > @sum.should == sum.to_i
> > end
> >
> > Be refactored to this?
> >
> > given_matcher("an addend of $addend") do |addend|
> > @adder ||= Adder.new
> > @adder << addend.to_i
> > end
> >
> > when_matcher("they are added") do
> > @sum = @adder.sum
> > end
> >
> > then_matcher("the sum should be $sum") do |sum|
> > @sum.should == sum.to_i
> > end
> >
> > I'd find that a little bit easier to type; what do you think?
>
> Easier to type, sure. I'm not in love w/ the names yet though because
> they sound like verb phrases - "given matcher", "when matcher", "then
> matcher".
>
> How about something like match_given, match_when, match_then?
I see what you're saying. However I think it's helpful to put the
g/w/t right at the beginning of the method name, it's easier to
distinguish between them. You can look at the first character and
know what's going on. With step_matcher(:given...) you have to skip
the first 12 characters. That feels noisy and dirty to me, and I
think the readability overcomes the verb phrase problem.
Though I agree with you and I'm not in love with given_matcher. hrm,
needs more thought.
Pat
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
