unknown wrote:
> It would be preferable I think, if a more helpful error message were
> given, instead of simply the method being missing.

Agreed.  The unit test only specifies that the method name should be 
mentioned.  I'm not sure how to test for a "helpful" error message 
without specifying the exact text to be shown ... and I didn't want to 
overconstrain the solution.

Perhaps Nathaniel will include an assert_helpful_error_message method in 
the next release of Test::Unit.

> And while I suspect you're being a little flipant, I like your
> implementation - it does do nearly everything that's desired.

What?  Me flippant?  Never!

;)

--
-- Jim Weirich

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.