On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM, David Whetstone <da...@humblehacker.com> wrote: > > I'm not married to this particular implementation, the result of a series of > compromises made while trying to add this ability with few changes to RSpec. > Being able to produce the output above is really what I'm after. In > addition to the above, I would also like to see the ability to similarly > control the output of failure messages. I have not yet attempted to > implement this. > > I'm very interested to hear your opinions on what I've presented here. > Comments?
Your output example looks very very cool. It also looks very niche, however -- I'm not sure what sort of problem domain this is, but it seems to be something to do with math or formal logic, and my own background is weak enough that the graphical notation doesn't clarify anything for me at all. I don't think this is a bad idea, but it's probably useful to a small enough subset of people that doing it as an extension to RSpec (a new class of formatter instead of a hacked-up HTMLFormatter?) or a decorator *around* RSpec (i.e., translating the inputs and outputs) might make more sense than changing RSpec itself. Either way, if you intended to pursue this idea further you might want to consider developing a DSL (domain specific language) suitable for the sort of notation you want. You've kinda-sorta done that with your placeholders like "!L(fs1)!" and friends, but it's not really a *good* DSL. The actual intention has been shifted to an object method far removed from your description, and what's left isn't meaningful to humans. -- 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
