[Quick] Change exampleGroups() to spec() about quick HOT 8 CLOSED

This is completely bike shedding

No way! This is important stuff. 💼

I definitely want to lock down the function name at some point (by the way, it's an instance method as of a7fc644). But I'm not sure whether I like spec or exampleGroups more. spec is much shorter and seems more accessible.

I'll keep this issue open for now; those with an opinion should post a comment with their vote.

from quick.

Given that you’ve just mentioned ‘spec’ twice in the previous line it seems a bit redundant mentioning it again. Shame that it is required.

Need to avoid something that people might be inclined to declare more than once though.

How about run()?

On 11 Jun 2014, at 17:22, Brian Gesiak [email protected] wrote:

This is completely bike shedding

No way! This is important stuff.

I definitely want to lock down the function name at some point (by the way, it's an instance method as of a7fc644). But I'm not sure whether I like spec or exampleGroups more. spec is much shorter and seems more accessible.

I'll keep this issue open for now; those with an opinion should post a comment with their vote.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

from quick.

I'd also support run(), agree about possible redundancy.

from quick.

I'd prefer spec() over run(), mainly because it seems more intuitive to me. (Also, "run" seems a bit weird because that's not really what the method does.)

from quick.

I prefer spec() as well as it makes more sense to me. That's my vote.

from quick.

Okay, I think I'm convinced: we should change exampleGroups to spec. Whoever ends up submitting the pull request, me or otherwise, should remember to change the README and example apps.

from quick.

Fixed in #51. Thanks for the input, everybody!

I'll update the screenshot in the REAME one of these days, but personally I'm not too bothered by a little inconsistency in the image.

from quick.

🍻

from quick.