Rick DeNatale wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> What are you looking to specify and how do you envision the syntax? >> >> I'm thinking something like: >> >> obj.should yield_with(no_args).on(:message) >> >> def message >> yield >> end >> >> list.should yield_with(1).then(2).then(3).on(:each) >> >> def each >> yield 1 >> yield 2 >> yield 3 >> end >>
Hmmm.. I didn't think about multiple yields... >> That all make sense? >> > > Sorta, but what about arguments to the message? > > def message(x, y, z) > yield x+y+z > end > > obj.receiving(:message).with(1,2,3).should yield(6) > Or maybe: obj.when_sent(:message, 1,2,3).should yield(6) I don't know if the extra 'with' layer is needed since the sending of messages to objects is a very commonly used idiom in ruby. To keep the rspec syntax consistent your suggestion may be better so I could see it either way. > (1..3).receiving(:each_with_index).should > yield_with([1,0]).then([2,1]).then([3,2]) > > or > > (1..3).receiving(:each_with_index).should yield_with([1,0], [2,1],[3,2]) > The multiple args in the yield/yield_with call is more consistent with the way rspec's mocking of return values work (i.e. mock.shou..and_return([1,2],[0,4]) ) than the 'then' syntax suggested above. I guess I could go either way on this one as well. > (1..3).receiving(:inject).with(0).should yield_with ??????? > > Now it gets tricky since the sequence of yielded values depends on the block . > > I don't know that I like where this is going. > > My original goal was only to ease the pain on my eyes for the the simple cases. I never considered the more involved cases, so you make a good point. I can't think of an eloquent way of handling this. I don't think a matcher could ever handle all of the cases. Hmmm... -Ben _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
