Merge pull request #482 from adamlogic/readme_fix

Remove statement about should_not have vs should have_no

README.rdoc

@@ -498,14 +498,19 @@ is (the default is 2 seconds):
 Be aware that because of this behaviour, the following two statements are *not*
 equivalent, and you should *always* use the latter!
 
+    !page.has_xpath?('a')
+    page.has_no_xpath?('a')
+
+The former would immediately fail because the content has not yet been removed.
+Only the latter would wait for the asynchronous process to remove the content
+from the page.
+
+Capybara's Rspec matchers, however, are smart enough to handle either form.
+The two following statements are functionally equivalent:
+
     page.should_not have_xpath('a')
     page.should have_no_xpath('a')
 
-The former would incorrectly wait for the content to appear, since the
-asynchronous process has not yet removed the element from the page, it would
-therefore fail, even though the code might be working correctly. The latter
-correctly waits for the element to disappear from the page.
-
 Capybara's waiting behaviour is quite advanced, and can deal with situations
 such as the following line of code: