Sean P. DeNigris wrote > 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...
Yes, anyArgs can be useful, and I was thinking about the /does/ extension too, and I convinced myself that it is ok and useful. I gave you access to the repo. The reason for my initial hesitation was that my goal is to not have too powerful features like rspec has. E.g. in rspec, it is easy to stub out global class objects and I see lots of ruby programmer doing it. I don't think this is the right solution for the problem. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4727265.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
