Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
2016-03-23 21:21 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > Personally I would rename ShouldExpression to ExecutedBlock or > ExecutedExpression, keep #should as nice syntactic sugar, but provide > #executed as the standard way of creating ExecutedExpressions. After all > this is useful

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
2016-03-23 19:39 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda : > This reads nicely. What is the class of the value answered by #should? > What can you do with it? > It returns ShouldExpression instance which wraps receiver to execute following messages. And following messages are supposed

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Eliot Miranda
Hi Denis, On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 14:05 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > >> [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were done >> [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were doneInOrder >> > > I really like this

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Eliot Miranda
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Denis Kudriashov > wrote: > > > > 2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > >> > >> Maybe... > >>[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ]

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
2016-03-23 14:05 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were done > [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] were doneInOrder > I really like this idea. Thank's. What about: [mock someMessage. mock2 someMessage2] should beDone [mock someMessage.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Ben Coman
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : >> >> Maybe... >>[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ] shouldve beenSent >> >> but maybe you don't want different #shouldXXX messages. > > > Thank

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
2016-03-23 12:38 GMT+01:00 Ben Coman : > Maybe... >[ mock someMessage. mock2 somMessage2 ] shouldve beenSent > > but maybe you don't want different #shouldXXX messages. > Thank you too, Ben. And yes it will not follow other should expressions. But it would not be bad to

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Ben Coman
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Max Leske : >> >> But from English it not sounds like it should be occurred in past. Normally thats my cue ;) but I don't have any great ideas. >> So what correct

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
2016-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Max Leske : > But from English it not sounds like it should be occurred in past. So what > correct and not long sentence can be used here? maybe: > > mock had received someMessage > > > mock should haveReceived someMessage > > Thank's for

Re: [Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Max Leske
> On 23 Mar 2016, at 10:48, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > Hello. > > I prepare new version of Mocketry with many new functions. And I have little > question about some naming. > > It will be possible to verify (at the end of test) that particular message > was happened.

[Pharo-dev] Naming question for new version of Mocketry

2016-03-23 Thread Denis Kudriashov
Hello. I prepare new version of Mocketry with many new functions. And I have little question about some naming. It will be possible to verify (at the end of test) that particular message was happened. My first suggestion was: mock should receive someMessage But from English it not sounds like