On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Zach Dennis > > As you mentioned David, > "Plain text is great for some situations, but > > > > so is writing in Ruby". This begs the question now that we have plain > > > text stories. Can we make the ruby-based stories more developer > > > friendly? Perhaps remove string identifiers, use symbols. Quit passing > > > in blocks to story parts, assume each story part is a method call, and > > > I'm sure there are other things that could be suggested as well. > > > > You can do all of this already except using symbols instead of > > Strings, something which doesn't strike me as more readable. Here's an > > example: > > > > http://pastie.caboo.se/155775 > > And here's another example with a bit more reuse expressed in the > steps at the expense of more complexity in the steps. Which approach > is better? I can't really say one is always better than the other. I > choose based on readability in a given context.
I hadn't even considered that using steps with the normal ruby stories was an option. This gives what I am looking for. As for symbols, they reduce a few keystrokes when you have to select them and/or see find them in a file or in the project, or copy them. They are not as readable as the strings as you point out. I may just need to buck up and/or write a macro which gives me the ability to select a string based on quotes. This is not really a story problem, more of my editor lacking a feature I want. > Just exploring possibilities. Ditto. Thanks for the reply and for the code pastes. -- Zach Dennis http://www.continuousthinking.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
