On 1/15/07, Gennady Bystritsky <Gennady.Bystritsky / quest.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> >>
> >> Is now the appropriate time for me to re-suggest:
> >> @hotel.should.be_booked_solid_on "12/31/2007"
> >
> > YES!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Inspired by your question, I played around for a minute w/ a means of
> > supporting all three sets of syntax w/ one set of matchers. The result
> > is not complete yet, but right now the trunk supports all of these
> > forms for some of the expections:
> >
> > result.should_equal 5
> > result.should.equal 5
> > result.should equal(5)
> >
> > When I'm done, you'll be able to use most of the expectations with any
> > of the three forms, though using the "_" or "." forms for custom
> > expectations will require monkey patching an RSpec class, so it will
> > be an "at your own risk" sort of scenario.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up Wilson!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
>
> You may have missed it, but it was exactly what I have suggested (or
> imlied to suggest) in my first reply to you ;-)

Ah - I did miss it.

What Wilson is talking about has a bit more context. We've been
through a number of variations of rspec syntax. everything.with.dots
was one, everything_with_underscores was another, and we've even had
some.dots.and.some_underscores.

Wilson was suggesting that we return to a previous version of the
syntax where the receive.and.should get dots but
everything_after_should gets underscores.

Regardless, thanks for the suggestion (or implication thereof).

Cheers,
David

>
> Anyways, glad the idea got through other channels :-)
>
> Gennady.
>
>