Am 02.06.2008 um 20:01 schrieb Pat Maddox:
What about showing an ugly warning in the test runner? != is a funky
edge case that can really bite people. It'd be nice to have it fixed,
but then tell the programmer to change it to == because of
performance.
Pat
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Hennemeyer wrote:
>
>> Hey!
>>
>> I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !~ ...
>> 'problem'.
>> It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) a
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>>
>> RSpec is already getting dinged for being slower than test/unit. Making it
>> run any slower than it already does is a deal breaker for me.
>>
>
> It seems perfec
On Jun 1, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Hennemeyer wrote:
Hey!
I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
~ ... 'problem'.
It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've
done some
benchmarking
On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Hennemeyer wrote:
Hey!
I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
~ ... 'problem'.
It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've
done some
benchmarking to see if it's really that slow.
A direct comparison
Very cool. Maybe we could print a warning when people use !=. That
would let us get the ugly != bug fixed, but not have the perf issues.
Pat
On 6/1/08, Matthias Hennemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
> ~ ... 'problem'.
Hey!
I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
~ ... 'problem'.
It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've
done some
benchmarking to see if it's really that slow.
A direct comparison of
running '1.should == 1'
with the unmodified rspec sourc
