On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 13:18, Geoffrey Young wrote: > hrmph. now that you mention it, yeah, it does. and there's already > Test::MockObject (which I've heard about but obviously haven't actually used > yet :)
The author is very handsome, too. > yeah, that was the real goal. perhaps a subclass of Test::MockObject is more > appropriate. Test::MockObject::Extends comes to mind. It's often what people want instead of T::MO. Fortunately, they're in the same distribution. -- c
