Comments for sandal's prawn  

D'oh. A regression?

for once, not me! :)

rdoc should work too: http://github.com/yob/abn/tree/master

In some ways I like raising an error on invalid utf-8, but silently replacing non WinAnsi characters with a valid char.

It’s up to you though, you’re the API master :)

So should we fix Prawn::Encoding::WinAnsi so it raises an error?

unpack() will raise an exception if the string isn’t valid utf-8 though, so the original error message before these 2 commits was somewhat accurate.

I just noticed that Prawn::Encoding::WinAnsi doesn’t raise an exception when an invalid codepoint is detected, so this error message will never get raised :)

Ah, good call.

It’s been a while since I wrote this patch, is this exception message correct?

Isn’t it possible for the utf-8 to be valid, but contain characters that aren’t in WinAnsi?

nice!

rspec is huge. moving to bacon cut a few of our test run times significantly.

There may be other reasons too, but the whole lightweight nature of bacon is very appealing.

Since patching for autotest support (now upstream), I’m using it all the time.

WRT this discussion, I have made a Prawn fork yesterday that uses bacon and facon. It did highlight a couple of areas where facon still needs work, some of which I completed in my facon fork.

Because rspec was horribly broken on 1.9. I am a huge fan of bacon- its compact (only 300 lines!), simple (no magic, so it works on all the ruby implementations) and I prefer its syntax over rspec’s (imho, rspec is confusing and unintuitive)

tmm1— why did y’all make the switch— and how would you compare the two now?

We switched from rspec to bacon when we wanted to make Ramaze 1.9 compatible. IIRC, our bacon suite passes successfully on rubinius, jruby, mri and ruby 1.9.

Understood re. BDD, the thing I love about bacon is it’s so light, and fast.

raggi, if you want to fork and see if you can get things working, I’d be happy to look at it. I can’t really make any promises, but I’d consider moving to Bacon/Facon if that’s what ya’ll want.

Still, I see the benefit of Test::Unit compatibility… some of my friends are anti-BDD curmudgeons :)

Seems to work on 1.9 in a few of my packages…

Oh, and bacon for autotest just needs a .bacon in your test/ or spec/ dir.

Bacon + Facon + Autotest FTW! :)

I haven’t tested on 1.9 though, but give me a few :)

tmm1: have you tried them on Ruby 1.9.0_3 ?

The reason I went for test/spec is that at its core, it’s just Test::Unit, so I didn’t expect it to break because of that.

The reason I went for Mocha is because I’m familiar with it :)