On 10/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > shipping_type.should > be_include(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR) > > This is what I usually do; I agree the syntax of be_include looks odd, as is > true for some other predicates. > > OTOH, it's hard to find a formulation that works well for all predicates. > For instance: > domain.should_valid doesn't look as good as domain.should be_valid > domain.should_include(x) looks better than domain.should be_include(x) > > Rspec could support both, which means you could select the one that "looks" > right, I guess. That might lead to inconsistent usage. I can live with the > current approach as well, looks odd, but it's not a serious problem for me.
As Nick points out in this thread, rspec supports: collection.should include(some_item) Also, you can define your own predicate matchers very easily using the predicate_matchers collection: predicate_matchers[:be_able_to_cook] = [:can_cook?] chef.should be_able_to_cook => passes if chef.can_cook? Cheers, David > > - Geoffrey > -- > Geoffrey Wiseman > > _______________________________________________ > 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
