On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Stephen Eley <sfe...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com>: >> Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers >> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have >> to say. >
what_follows.should be_brilliant > should be || should_not be: that is the expectation: > Whether 'tis nobler in the parser to interpret > The outputs and side effects of outrageous duck typing, > Or to inherit against a sea of matchers > And by declaration extend them? To fail: to raise; > No more; and by a raise to say we throw > The exception and the thousand natural returns > The code is heir to, 'tis a specification > Devoutly to be wished. To fail: to raise; > To raise, perchance to rescue: ay, there's the rub, > For in that state of exception what tests may fail > When we have injected in this matcher code > Must give us pause: there's the RSpec > That makes calamity of such long backtraces; > For who would bear the Flogs and Heckles, > The oppressor's Reek, the proud man's Cucumber, > The pangs of despised Rcov, the spec_server's Drb, > The insolence of Autotest and the spurns > That patient merit of the occasional Rakes, > When he himself might his validation make > With a bare assertion? ..... > > > (...And so forth. All of which is to say, before my Muse molested me, > that I rather _like_ the sparse "should be" and "should_not be" specs. > Simple is good, and there's a poetry about them. Keep 'em!) > > > > -- > Have Fun, > Steve Eley (sfe...@gmail.com) > ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine > http://www.escapepod.org > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
