Is something like this what you were thinking of?
http://gist.github.com/281907
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes =
exactamundo
On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Corey Haines wrote:
Is something like this what you were thinking of?
http://gist.github.com/281907
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:02, Rick DeNatale wrote:
-1
You can already say
a.should include(1:4)
which is clearer IMHO.
I assume Roger was referring to the general case though (which I still don't
like) - and just happened to pick
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes = :rise_from_the_ashes?
Also, in general, I think specs look better without ? symbols on methods, my
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk wrote:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :risen_from_the_ashes =
On Jan 18, 2010, at 3:12 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'd rather not add a new DSL for the few cases in which we want to
essentially delegate a predicate. We can already do this with the
matcher DSL:
I think Pat was just suggesting Roger try this in his own code. It's not
something I
On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk wrote:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
define_simple_predicate_matcher :rise_from_the_ashes?
As an extension, how about:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Pat Maddox mailingli...@patmaddox.com wrote:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Ashley Moran
ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk wrote:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:02, Rick DeNatale wrote:
-1
You can already say
a.should include(1:4)
which is clearer IMHO.
I assume Roger was referring to the general case though (which I still don't
like) - and just happened to pick an example with an existing matcher.
--
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:49 pm, rogerdpack wrote:
a.should include?(1:4) # if there's no matcher called include? then
just call include?
Am I right thinking that this would mean writing a method_missing that creates
a matcher for every unhandled message on the example object (whatever scope
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, rogerdpack rogerpack2...@gmail.com wrote:
Any interest in the following idea?
a.should include?(1:4) # if there's no matcher called include? then
just call include?
or something along those lines?
-1
You can already say
a.should include(1:4)
which is
11 matches
Mail list logo
