> 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.
I guess the confusion comes from being able to do
a.should == 'b'
a.should.== 'b'
but not anything like
a.should.equal('b')
== appears to be special cased? But I'm sure I'll get used to it.
Thanks for the replies.
-r
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
