On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Takumi Tsunokake wrote:
> Hi, I'm Takumi Tsunokake.
>
> I think
> expect { ... }.not_to rails_error
> is more grammatical and natural than
> expect { ... }.to_not rails_error
I think you mean raise_error (I've made the same mistake a few times). I'm
pretty sure they're equally valid, grammatically speaking:
Expect x not to y
Expect x to not y
> Are there any backgrounds and reasons of decision for expect
> { ... }.to_not, not expect { ... }.not_to?
>
> I'm happy if expect { ... }.to_not is changed to expect
> { ... }.not_to.
It's because it aligns better with should[_not]. I think it would be more
confusing if we had [not_]to and [should_]not.
HTH,
David
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
