On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Justin Ko wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Myron Marston wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this a bit ever since Zach Dennis brought up
>> the issue on another rspec-expectations ticket [1]. I've come up with
>> a proof-of-concept matcher that works prett
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Mar 17, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Myron Marston wrote:
> I've been thinking about this a bit ever since Zach Dennis brought up
> the issue on another rspec-expectations ticket [1]. I've come up with
> a proof-of-concept matcher that works pretty well, I think [2].
> Here's how you use it:
>
> expect
rspec-2.9.0 is released wtih lots of bug fixes and a few minor feature
improvements as well. Enjoy!
### rspec-core-2.9.0 / 2012-03-17
[full changelog](http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/compare/v2.8.0...v2.9.0)
Enhancements
* Support for "X minutes X seconds" spec run duration in formatter. (uz
I've been thinking about this a bit ever since Zach Dennis brought up
the issue on another rspec-expectations ticket [1]. I've come up with
a proof-of-concept matcher that works pretty well, I think [2].
Here's how you use it:
expect { |b| 3.tap(&b) }.to yield_value(3)
The argument passed to the
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 20:46, Mohamad El-Husseini
wrote:
> Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the explanation. It's tricky knowing what runs
> when, and what variable is in what scope. It seems like "code smell" to add
> an instance variable to the before block.
>
> I don't understand what advantage
