Not to shoot my own patch in the foot, but my personal opinion is to have only one way to do it. I think whatever ambiguity there may be in before(:all) isn't adequately compensated by the additional confusion of having before(:any), which sounds like it would do something subtly different. -- John Feminella Principal Consultant, BitsBuilder LI: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnxf SO: http://stackoverflow.com/users/75170/
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 21:58, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:16 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:11 PM, John Feminella wrote: >>> >>>> That's not quite right. :each runs before _each_ spec, while :all runs >>>> once, before _any_ spec. >>> >>> Perhaps :any is a better name? We could add it as an alternative for the >>> same as :all. WDYT? >>> >> >> Speaking for myself, I never was confused between before(:each) and >> before(:all). The first always meant before each OF the examples, and >> the latter before all the examples. >> >> As a devil's advocate, while before(:any) might evoke the current >> meaning of before(:all) for some people, after(:any) to me evokes the >> curent meaning of after(:each) more than it does after(:all), i.e. >> after any OF the examples rather than after all the examples, because >> I'd never say after any the examples. >> >> But that might just be me. > > You're absolutely right that it would be confusing for after, and > given that, I think we should probably not add it. > _______________________________________________ > 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
