On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Tim Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> List, > > Given a Cucumber script like > > Then /^the (?:(first|second|third|fourth) line of the )?(.*) section of the > (.*) should be (.*)$/ do |*args| > #... > end > > Cucumber errors with > expected 0 block argument(s), got 4 (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError) > > While it's perfectly legal in generic ruby to do this > > def foo(&block) > block.call 1,2,3,4,5 > end > > foo do |*args| > #... > End > > Is this an intended limitation? I can work around it, but I'll end up with > 2 different 'Then' calls that do nothing but call a common method It's intended. Let me explain with an example: http://gist.github.com/87890 Ruby 1.8 doesn't know how to distinguish between a Proc with no args (and no pipes) and a Proc with varargs. They both have arity -1. This means Cucumber (while running on Ruby 1.8) can't really tell whether you forgot to define any args or if you're deliberately using varargs. Since the first case is more likely than the second, this is what Cucumber assumes. I don't want to sacrifice this aide just so people can use varargs. The benefit of getting help when you forget to define prog args outweighs the drawback of not being able to use varargs. That said, I'd like to make Cucumber smart enough to accept varargs on Ruby 1.9. Does this sound like an OK compromise? Aslak > > -- > Tim Hart > Senior Software Engineer > PICA Group > 615-713-9956 :cell > timothyjhart :Y! > [email protected] :AIM > > > ***************************************************************************** > > Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain information that is > Confidential or legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the > individual(s) and entity named in the message. If you are not an intended > recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete > the material from your computer. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this > message and do not disclose its contents or take any action in reliance on > the information it contains. > > > ***************************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
