On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ashley Moran <ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk> wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, I see that the RSpec bundle actually does have a Language definition, somehow I missed that when I looked before. > > 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. And easy to add yourself by just editing the bundle. > > 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? I don't think I like that. For one thing most folks don't include the dot suffix in require 'statements'. -- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick Twitter: @RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
