rspec users - Apr 2007 - it "should ...", encouraging "should" via it_should

On 4/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Any other suggestions?
>
> In general, I''m much more inclined to favor an additional
parameter
> passed to #it over a new method name.
Since I suggested in the other thread that perhaps during_event and
on_event could append text to the spec string, here''s another similar
(but simpler) suggestion that''s been in my mind for a while.
it_should could automatically add "should" to the spec string.

At first, the "it" syntax left me feeling a bit weird.  I like that
we''ve gone from context/specify to describe/it, because it reads far
more naturally and there is less of the "what does a context mean,
what should I be specifying" questioning.  It pushes you gently in the
direction of writing the specifications in a descriptive form.
However, having recently worked with my coworkers to make the
wholesale shift to rspec, I''ve noticed a surprising number of specs
that don''t have "should" at the beginning of the spec string,
and
should.  Now, we haven''t made the shift to 0.9 yet, so we
don''t have
describe/it yet either.  But if the overwhelming majority of specs
should include "should" as the first word, instead of

 it "should do such and such"

why not use

 it_should "do such and such"

For some reason, "it_should" feels a lot nicer to me than
"it", but on
top of that it should go an extra step towards forcing people to word
their spec strings in the proper manner.  At that point, the primary
documentation could tell people to use "it_should", and "it"
could be
relegated to a dusty corner of the rspec library for people who have
some strange reason for not wanting the word "should" automatically
included into their spec strings (also for backwards compatibility).

Thoughts?

-- 
Nick