On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 2:28:08 AM UTC+1 Corin Lawson wrote:
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 1:12:00 am UTC+11 TheDiveO wrote:
One thing I notice is that your design assumes to specify the expected call
sequence upon creation, or do I get this wrong? My expectation would be to
specify this
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 3:33:42 am UTC+11 Mike Schinkel wrote:
It doesn't have to be imaginative nor obfuscated to be cognizant of naming
conflicts.
Thanks, you've convinced me that it needs to change so I'll do it now and I
might steal that name (vermock)!
On Tuesday 9 January 2024
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:39:31 PM UTC-5 Corin Lawson wrote:
*also thoughts on the mock lib (apologies for the lack of naming
creativity),*
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 9:00:24 AM UTC-5 TheDiveO wrote:
*As for the naming: kudos for naming it what it is, clear and concise*
A
a quick first lock looks promising to me: I like the blog post, as it
does IMHO a gentle introduction to your angle of attack. Having used
mocking (or one of its twins/cousins/... for those who insist on this not
being mocking, alas) on Python I've up to now found the Go mock packages to
be
