David, On Sep 21, 2007, at 11:19 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Then I will have tens of methods that in fact has nothing really >> different from reused examples > > But, as methods, they are more clearly differentiated for reuse. > > The problem is that if I reuse an example, and then decide to change > that example, I may accidentally change the meaning of other examples. > This is possible w/ helper methods too, but I think it is less likely. I see no difference, really. You can break anything, either helper or example. But when using helpers, you'd likely to have worse code (just IMHO) > > You can keep pursuing this if you like, but I can tell you right now > that it is very likely not going to happen. We already have a few > different ways to deal w/ reuse and this one seems more confusing to > me than helpful. > I am not going to change anything, that's simply not my intention. My intention was to check what people think about this approach. I just found it very convenient for my coding experience. I do not need spend time extracting helpers, I do not need to keep single line examples that call helpers. I just write down pieces of logic, that's it. Anyway, thank you for your feedback. Yurii. _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
