On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> When maintaining code, I often wish I could travel back in time and > tell the writer "Don't do that". :) > I don't see how we can solve the problem of people not following style guidelines by giving them another style guideline to follow. :) module methods have encapsulated state. > Probably 99% of the (non-framework) class methods I've seen have no state. We all have seen YAGNI > bite us in the ass too, especially when it means turning off the > brain. I don't think 2 extra filler lines of code make that strong of > an argument, when there is more than one class method (and even if > there is one class method IMO). If writing those two lines of code are unnecessary for any of the uses you and others have described, I would call that turning off the brain. :) > I think we also like how consistent conventions and delineation of > responsibility make code faster to read and understand. > Agreed, but I think this begs the question under discussion. ///ark (For those who are tired of this non-RSpec-related discussion (but apparently find themselves forced to read it), I really will try to wrap up my contribution. I don't have the time for the Ruby list, so this is the only place I have to talk about fun stuff like this. ObRSpec: the discussion did illuminate a situation where tests can pass but the development app can fail - when using class variables in RoR.)
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
