On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM, James Byrne <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > David Chelimsky wrote: >> >> >> I don't think we should call it metaclass though, but I'm not sure >> what I *do* want to call it. Metaclass != eigenclass, which is what >> this really is, so maybe eigenclass.rb - don't let that hang you up >> though, I can always change the names after. >> > > The thing is, Rails already defines #metaclass. So, I thought to check > for that method before extending Object with my own. If > Object.respond_to? :metaclass == true then we are in Rails, or some > other framework that provides the same thing, and so we need not provide > our own. Otherwise we add it. > > Comments?
I'd rather always define our own so the results are consistent from RSpec regardless of other frameworks in the midst. Does that make sense to you? > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > 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
