From: Mark Thomas <ruby@...>
Date: 2008-06-12T23:44:39+09:00
Subject: Re: rspec and inequalities?

On Jun 11, 6:31 pm, Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks! Is this syntactic sugar for all be_xxx methods?
>
>  No.
>
>   1.should be > 0
> will work, but say:
>
>   1.should be_false > 0
>
> will fail when RSpec tries to send #:0? to 1. One might say that this is an
> rspec bug, but I'd say that 1.should be_false > 0 is nonsensical, so who
> cares.

Actually, what I meant is can
  item.should be_valid

be replaced with
  item.should be valid

but now that I think about it, rspec probably does some method_missing
magic with the be_ prefix and wouldn't know to use #valid? with the
question mark. Maybe the equivalent is

  item.should be valid?