On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:33 AM, rogerdpack <rogerpack2...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It is somewhat surprising to me, as a newbie, to have to assert > a.should be_a(Hash) > > That extra space in there feels awkward. > > Suggestion: > > allow for constructs like > a.should.be_a(Hash) > > Thoughts? > You're about 4 years late to the party. We were playing around with a variety of options back in 2005 and went with the current syntax because it gave us the most flexibility and the highest level of decoupling, making it easier for others to create their own matcher libraries. While it would be technically feasible to support should.matcher, doing so now would cause more confusion for more people than be helpful, IMO. If you're really excited about that syntax (with the dots), there are other frameworks (test/spec and expectations to name two) that use it or something similar, so you might want to give those a peek as well. Good luck! Cheers, David > Much thanks. > -r > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
