On Nov 12, 2007 11:39 AM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here are the main reasons that I prefer an active voice because: > * using it "should ..." over and over renders should meaningless (I > have grown this barely conscience aversion to the word 'should') > * less less words are needed > * the differentiating information of the 'it' statement is in the > front, rather than hidden behind should (space to the left is at a > premium) > * it describes what the software will do and what it does (both from > the Test Driven Design and Regression verification lifecycles of the > test) > * you still have a good "sentence template" that "should" provides > (you have to make a coherent sentence) > > So here it my initial stab. Lets discuss :)
I definitely agree that the active voice is nice in spec strings. A coworker, when he first saw the use of 'should', said something along the lines of "I thought you were writing specifications, not recommendations." I fumbled and tried to explain that away, but the objection has stuck with me. I've also noticed on Rubinius' spec style guide that the use of should is discouraged: http://rubinius.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5089/specs-style-guide There are still some places that I use 'should', and if I'm working in a project that tends to use it, I'll stick with it. But in my own work, I prefer 'it has 4 entries' to 'it should have 4 entries'. (Though, in the code, the use of 'should' to express the expectation, does make sense, as the Rubinius page explains). Thanks for bringing this up, I'd been thinking about it lately. Kyle _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
