On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Attila Magyar [via Smalltalk] <[email protected]> wrote: > It's true, but it would make difficult to return a block. E.g. > > mock can receive: #msg; answers: [ [..] ] I'll trade an extra pair of brackets in a less common case for a simpler API any day ;)
> Anyways, I'm working on the next version with a slightly different api. My > plan is to fully separate the DSL from the main part. This will make possible > to play with different syntax without touching the core. Or even the users > will be able to define their own syntax. Are you interested in integrating my changes into the current API? If so, I'll refactor them and clean them up. I personally would find it difficult to use the library without them. Coming from Ruby, a proper test double framework is the thing I miss most. Rspec was amazing. BabyMock is close, and with these changes has the test double features I commonly relied on Rspec for... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4727195.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
