{"comment":{"created_at":"2011-10-26T15:15:08Z","body":"It only has to read in the same order, for me, which this does.  Is there any reason why the deprecation for the `method_missing` way has to take place at all?  Newcomers would use the canonical method from the RDoc, old hands will continue to use muscle memory.  Is there a downside to having both post-3.0?","updated_at":"2011-10-26T15:15:08Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/comments/2531520","id":2531520,"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/661a0d711ce4a64290ae2980189e9efb?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"661a0d711ce4a64290ae2980189e9efb","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rgarner","id":194511,"login":"rgarner"}},"action":"created","issue":{"number":93,"created_at":"2011-10-26T15:00:57Z","pull_request":{"diff_url":null,"patch_url":null,"html_url":null},"body":"Per https://gist.github.com/893459, the `have(n).whatever` api can be confusing since `whatever` is handled by `method_missing`, so there is no clear place to search in the code or even rdoc to understand whatever is.\r\n\r\nProposal: change `have(n).whatever` to `have(n, :whatever)`. This reads out loud exactly the same way, and a user would who wanted to understand what `:whatever` would likely look to the right place in the rdoc to do so.\r\n\r\nWe can do this by presenting deprecation warnings from `method_missing` when used in this way for 2.x, and then removing support entirely in 3.0.","comments":1,"title":"Change have(n).things to have(n, :things)","updated_at":"2011-10-26T15:15:08Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/93","id":2057561,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"closed_at":null,"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5d38ab152e1e3e219512a9859fcd93af?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"5d38ab152e1e3e219512a9859fcd93af","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dchelimsky","id":1075,"login":"dchelimsky"},"html_url":"https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/93","labels":[],"state":"open"},"legacy":{"issue_id":2057561,"comment_id":2531520}}