Kris Maglione wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:07:41AM -0800, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: >> there was no message_types.rb in my code. > > Sorry, message_spec.rb.
Ah, message_spec.rb is just a unit test (or "specification" as the RSpec people like to say) that I used while developing the real code in message.rb. > And I was referring to: > > rsp.type.should == Rversion.type > rsp.version.should == req.version These are just assertions. > There was an article which advocated similar message passing style, and > I strongly disagreed with it. I'd prefer something more idiomatic, like: > > want rsp.type == Rversion.type > want rsp.version == req.Version Interesting; this seems like the Erlang style of programming where you have actors who can select messages to operate upon (using filters like the above code).
