On Jan 21, 2008 8:22 AM, Jim Lindley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm 99 44/100% sure that you have it right. The expression x != y is
> > syntactic sugar for !(x == y) much like x += y is syntactic sugar for
> > x = (x +y)
> >
> > The parser turns these into an internal representation (abstract
> I'm 99 44/100% sure that you have it right. The expression x != y is
> syntactic sugar for !(x == y) much like x += y is syntactic sugar for
> x = (x +y)
>
> The parser turns these into an internal representation (abstract
> syntax tree for 1.8, byte-codes for 1.9) which is identical to the
> se
On Jan 20, 2008 8:01 PM, Alex Satrapa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/01/2008, at 17:36 , David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > When you say 5 == 3, what that is really saying is 5.==(3), which is
> > how we're able to support 5.should == 3 (becomes 5.should.==(3)).
>
> Would it be true to say that the r
On 19/01/2008, at 17:36 , David Chelimsky wrote:
> When you say 5 == 3, what that is really saying is 5.==(3), which is
> how we're able to support 5.should == 3 (becomes 5.should.==(3)).
Would it be true to say that the reason "5.should != 3" won't work is
that somewhere inside Ruby the x != y
On Jan 18, 2008 10:47 PM, David James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> describe "should_not == vs. should !="
> it do
> 5.should_not == 6
> end # passes
>
> it do
> 5.should != 6
> end # fails
> end
>
> # I'm running the rspec 1.1.2 gem with the corresponding Textmate bundle
> # The sec
describe "should_not == vs. should !="
it do
5.should_not == 6
end # passes
it do
5.should != 6
end # fails
end
# I'm running the rspec 1.1.2 gem with the corresponding Textmate bundle
# The second failure surprises me.
# Is != not supported?
# I'd like to hear what you all think.
