On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM, James Byrne <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: >> David Chelimsky wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, James Byrne <li...@ruby-forum.com> >>> wrote: >>>> David Chelimsky wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Instead of metaclass how about object_handle ? >>>> >>>> wdt? >>> >>> Go for it. I think that's good enough for now. It's for internal >>> consumption only. Also, I'm better at making naming decisions when I >>> see things in context, I may change it later if I come up w/ something >>> that speaks to me more clearly. >>> >>> Good? >> >> OK. I have made the changes to the code in a local branch. I just need >> to stick the object_handle method in the right place and get the revised >> specs to pass. I should have a patch for you tomorrow. If not, then by >> Monday. > > Cool. I may need to get a release out before the weekend due to other > pressures, so this might not make it until the next release, but that > won't be too far off.
BTW - FWIW, this is a classic example of how OSS should work. User gets frustrated. User solves problem through contribution. Thanks for playing! > > Thanks James, > David > >> -- >> 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
