rspec users - Sep 2010 - May expect { ... }.to_not be changed to expect { ... }.not_to?

Hi, I''m Takumi Tsunokake.

I think
    expect { ... }.not_to rails_error
is more grammatical and natural than
    expect { ... }.to_not rails_error

Are there any backgrounds and reasons of decision for expect
{ ... }.to_not, not expect { ... }.not_to?

I''m happy if expect { ... }.to_not is changed to expect
{ ... }.not_to.

Best Regards :)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Takumi Tsunokake
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/bekkou68/
@bekkou68

On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Takumi Tsunokake wrote:
> Hi, I''m Takumi Tsunokake.
> 
> I think
>    expect { ... }.not_to rails_error
> is more grammatical and natural than
>    expect { ... }.to_not rails_error
I think you mean raise_error (I''ve made the same mistake a few times).
I''m pretty sure they''re equally valid, grammatically speaking:

Expect x not to y
Expect x to not y
> Are there any backgrounds and reasons of decision for expect
> { ... }.to_not, not expect { ... }.not_to?
> 
> I''m happy if expect { ... }.to_not is changed to expect
> { ... }.not_to.
It''s because it aligns better with should[_not]. I think it would be
more confusing if we had [not_]to and [should_]not.

HTH,
David