On 13 Mar 2009, at 15:42, Pat Maddox wrote:
On Mar 13, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
Hi
Just noticed that the behaviour of
@cow.should_not be_hungry
is not the same as
@cow.hungry?.should == false # nil also passes
Don't know how this has escaped me for so long =)
What's the thinking behind this? You can already do
@cow.hungry?.should(_not) be_nil
so surely it makes more sense for be_true and be_false to check for
booleans?
be_true and be_false do check for booleans :) but you didn't use
either of them.
The expanded form of
@cow.should_not be_hungry
is
@cow.hungry?.should_not be
Pat
Like yoda sounds, that does
Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
