While it's more conventional and what you'll see in the wild more frequently, it's not where rspec is headed.  The rspec folks recommend using the expect syntax for all new projects.  See  http://teaisaweso.me/blog/2013/05/27/rspecs-new-message-expectation-syntax/


​should was always a bit brain dead IMO since it requires rspec to augment every object and class in your program. 

---
Jesse Farmer (via iPhone)
http://devbootcamp.com · @jfarmer
jesse@devbootcamp.com · 773.319.9355

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Abi Noda <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

>>    end
>>  
>>    describe "#transactions" do
>> -
>> +    it "should be an array" do
>> +      account = Account.new("1234567890", 5)
>> +      expect(account.transactions).to be_a_kind_of(Array)
> Ok, back to my first point. It's definitely more conventional to use `should` assertions than expect here. Generally expect is used when you pass it a block (like you did with the exception assertions above)
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/dbc-curriculum/rspec-bank-account/pull/1/files#r4867566