Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

On Dec 28, 2:33 pm, David Chelimsky wrote: > So we're going to leave it as raise_error for now. If you'd like to push on > this (which you're welcome to), please add a ticket to lighthouse so it's > easy to find the discussions around it. If we can get general consensus that > this would be a good

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

> So we're going to leave it as raise_error for now. If you'd like to push on > this (which you're welcome to), please add a ticket to lighthouse so it's > easy to find the discussions around it. If we can get general consensus that > this would be a good move in spite of the negatives I just outli

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

David Chelimsky escreveu: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM, rogerdpack > wrote: > What I really want to say is "should raise(Blah)" but Ruby already defines > raise as a keyword :) > > I'd be open to aliasing raise_error with raise_exception,

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM, rogerdpack wrote: > > What I really want to say is "should raise(Blah)" but Ruby already > defines > > raise as a keyword :) > > > > I'd be open to aliasing raise_error with raise_exception, renaming it to > > raise_exception and aliasing raise_error for compatibi

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

> What I really want to say is "should raise(Blah)" but Ruby already defines > raise as a keyword :) > > I'd be open to aliasing raise_error with raise_exception, renaming it to > raise_exception and aliasing raise_error for compatibility, but I think this > might just add confusion rather than cla

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:08 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:33 AM, rogerdpack wrote: > > raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not: > > > > class BlahException < Exception; end > > class BlahError < StandardError; end > > > > lambda { raise BlahExce

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:33 AM, rogerdpack wrote: > > raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not: > > > > class BlahException < Exception; end > > class BlahError < StandardError; end > > > > lambda { raise BlahException }.should raise_error(BlahException) > > lambda

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

> raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not: > >   class BlahException < Exception; end >   class BlahError < StandardError; end > >   lambda { raise BlahException }.should raise_error(BlahException) >   lambda { raise BlahError }.should raise_error(BlahError) >   lambda { rai

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

On Dec 20, 2009, at 6:07 am, Elliot Winkler wrote: > raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not: > > class BlahException < Exception; end > class BlahError < StandardError; end > > lambda { raise BlahException }.should raise_error(BlahException) > lambda { raise BlahE

Re: [rspec-users] no should raise_exception

raise_error already catches any type of exception, error or not:   class BlahException < Exception; end   class BlahError < StandardError; end lambda { raise BlahException }.should raise_error(BlahException) lambda { raise BlahError }.should raise_error(BlahError) lambda { raise "blah" }.sh