> Seems like your mental model is that of a customization block being a > subclass or re-opening of the shared block. What you say makes sense in that > model, but that's not the same model I have.
My mental model is indeed that the customization block is like a subclass. I'm not sure where I got it--it's just the intuitive way I understood shared_examples_for and it_should_behave_like. But if no one else shares this mental model, then there's not much point in making rspec work this way. I'm happy going with whatever the general consensus is. Although, I do think that my mental model makes for some interesting possibilities :). > Assuming that can work. I've taken a closer look and getting that to work > would take some serious re-architecting that I'm not sure is a good idea. Maybe I misunderstood you here, but I took this to refer to the passing of parameters to the shared example group, as you suggested...and it turns out this isn't very hard at all: http://github.com/myronmarston/rspec-core/commit/c353badcb8154ab98a7dc46eb19c8a9fc702ec73 The one issue with this is that it uses #module_exec, which is not available in ruby 1.8.6--so we'd have to find a way to implement it, similar to how cucumber implements #instance_exec when it's not available: http://github.com/aslakhellesoy/cucumber/blob/30d43767a7cffd1675e990115ac86c139e4ea3e0/lib/cucumber/core_ext/instance_exec.rb#L16-31 Myron _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
