On Oct 19, 2008, at 9:43 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
Well, in fairness to wycats, rspec doesn't really offer formal extension points that would support this syntax, so he did the best he could given what is available. We've had some discussion about this and haven't landed anywhere firm yet. My opinion is that rspec, as it stands right now, needs a bit of internal cleanup before we start adding new features like that one. Also, the way I'd like to see this go is that rspec exposes a formal extension point - some sort of hook into pre and post-processing of each example including any arguments it was given. Then the merb extension could use a published API rather than monkey patching.
Ah, I understand now. I didn't mean my comment in a negative way, just that Merb has a philosophy of simplicity and transparency, and monkey-patching is the Rails way to do things. Hence my surprise. And spec code too... if anything's gonna make me nervous!
Is the Merb spec syntax (or something like it) something you'd like in the future? (RSpec 2?)
Ashley -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://aviewfromafar.net/ _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
