the current behaviour of the fail! method seems to allow a 'message' to be set and 'success?' to return false. but it carries on with the rest of the code.
i cant really see the benefit of this behaviour. doesnt it make more sense to have fail! actually abort the code after it fails?
the current behaviour of the fail! method seems to allow a 'message' to be set and 'success?' to return false. but it carries on with the rest of the code.
i cant really see the benefit of this behaviour. doesnt it make more sense to have fail! actually abort the code after it fails?
also why the ! ?
what about just overriding fail instead?