Sorry it's taken me so long to respond--I have considerably less time on weekdays than the weekend to take care of things like this.
> Yehuda Katz made a similar suggestion to me, referencing some code from > merb:http://github.com/merb/merb/blob/master/merb-core/lib/merb-core/contr... > > Merb also has an override! method that end users can use to override the > registered reserved methods, which I agree would be a necessary part of this. > The idea being that any user that does that does so explicitly and knowingly. Merb's implementation is very similar to what I had in mind. It's nice to see I'm not in left field with my idea :). I agree that having something like override! is important, although I think I slightly prefer an API like this: allow_reserved_overrides do def reserved_method end end Or maybe I like blocks too much... > The blacklist comment probably wouldn't work for upstream libs like Rails, > Test::Unit or MiniUnit. It would be up to RSpec to define those lists. But > maybe that's an acceptable tradeoff. WDYT? RSpec is pretty high-profile in the Ruby community, so we could hopefully get most libraries to add their reserved methods using something like: if defined?(RSpec::Core.add_reserved_methods) RSpec::Core.add_reserved_methods :foo, :bar, :bazz end As far as Rails goes, rspec-rails seems like a natural point to register these reserved methods. For libraries that are distributed with ruby like Test::Unit, I think it's acceptable to register their reserved methods in rspec-core itself. What do others think of this idea? I'm willing to take a stab at implementing this if there is support for it. Myron _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
