On 9 Aug 2010, at 17:37, Rick DeNatale wrote: > Well, I'd still use a different file name suffix which I could set > textmate to recognize as a spec > > _sspec.rb or _sgroup.rb > > something like that.
Hi Rick, I think that was what David was saying? (If I understood you both correctly, that is.) It's not enough to treat RSpec files as Ruby because they have too many specific highlighting rules and completions etc, which we don't want mixed into plain Ruby source. My specific example is I now have three files "*_contract.rb" that I'd like highlighted. But if everyone chipped in with their own convention we'd probably end in chaos. I like the "_sgroup.rb" idea though. Or maybe "_examples.rb"? That's fairly generic. Or... how about an actual dot-suffix, ".rspec", eg, "active_record_associations.rspec", which would be designed to indicate an RSpec-loadable file (prob shared example groups), but one that doesn't make sense to run alone (or can't be)? Any legs in that idea? Cheers Ash -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
