On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:
On Jul 04, 2008, at 9:45 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'm looking for ways to optimize rspec and came upon something
interesting. If I remove handling for auto-generated descriptions
(the thing that allows you to say "specify { 5.should == 5 }"
On Jul 04, 2008, at 9:45 pm, David Chelimsky wrote:
I'm looking for ways to optimize rspec and came upon something
interesting. If I remove handling for auto-generated descriptions
(the thing that allows you to say "specify { 5.should == 5 }" with
no description string) we get an average 3
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Steve Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
> > using it yourself?
>
> I'm not, but would it be impractical to
+1. This is a smart.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Steve Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
>> using it yourself?
>
> I'm not, but would it be
On Jul 4, 2008, at 10:54 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Steve Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature?
Are you
using it yourself?
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Steve Eley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
>> using it yourself?
> I'm not, but would it be impractical to extract it
David Chelimsky wrote:
Hey all,
I'm looking for ways to optimize rspec and came upon something
interesting. If I remove handling for auto-generated descriptions (the
thing that allows you to say "specify { 5.should == 5 }" with no
description string) we get an average 35% performance increase
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
> using it yourself?
I'm not, but would it be impractical to extract it out into some sort
of module or helper and tell people to include it in t
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature? Are you
> using it yourself?
Personally, I *love* this feature, and would not like to see it go.
One of my heuristics for a good spec is that it either a)
On Jul 4, 2008, at 4:45 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
So - how bad do you think this would suck to remove that feature?
Are you using it yourself?
All thoughts welcome.
Wasn't even aware that feature existed!
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users
Hey all,
I'm looking for ways to optimize rspec and came upon something
interesting. If I remove handling for auto-generated descriptions (the
thing that allows you to say "specify { 5.should == 5 }" with no
description string) we get an average 35% performance increase per
expectation. 3
11 matches
Mail list logo
