Very cool. Maybe we could print a warning when people use !=. That would let us get the ugly != bug fixed, but not have the perf issues.
Pat On 6/1/08, Matthias Hennemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey! > > I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should ! > ~ ... 'problem'. > It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've > done some > benchmarking to see if it's really that slow. > > A direct comparison of > running '1.should == 1' > with the unmodified rspec source against the rspec-version with > source inspect > shows that the latter is 7 times slower ... :( > > But benchmarks with '1.should == 1' inside a real example file are > showing 'only' > an overall speed decrease of 15% to 50%. That is still bad but having > lots of people > consider the passing of '1.should != 1' an rspec bug is bad too. > > Here is the benchmarking script: > http://pastie.caboo.se/206853 > > And the code is at branch 'inspect' in: > git://github.com/mhennemeyer/rspec > > There are examples for should and should_not != and !~ and i will > definitely work on performance if you not totally reject this whole > idea. > > Matthias. > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
