On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a similar vein, is there a neater way to express:
> assigns[:events].include?(@event_1).should be_true
assigns[:events].should include(@event_1)
--
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman
Hello,
I believe Pat Maddox has implemented a matcher that does the same thing
but there has been a battle to find out what to call it:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/162000#new
However I've not seen it in source yet.
--
Joseph Wilk
http://www.joesniff.co.uk
Matt Wynne wrote:
> I found myself
On a similar vein, is there a neater way to express:
assigns[:events].include?(@event_1).should be_true
cheers,
Matt
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com
In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former,
I found myself having to write this today:
class ArrayMatcher
def initialize(array_to_match)
@array_to_match = array_to_match
end
def ==(other)
ok = true
@array_to_match.each do |item|
ok = ok and other.include?(item)
end
ok
end
end
def array_including(ar
