On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Attila Magyar [via Smalltalk] &lt;<a href="/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4727195&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">[hidden email]</a>&gt; wrote:
<br/>&gt; It's true, but it would make difficult to return a block. E.g. 
<br/>&gt; 
<br/>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; mock can receive: #msg; answers: [ [..] ] 
<br/>I'll trade an extra pair of brackets in a less common case for a simpler API any day ;)
<br/><br/>&gt; 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. 
<br/>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...

	
	
	<div class="signature" style="margin-top:1em;color:#666666;font-size:11px;">
				Cheers,
<br/>Sean
			</div>
<br/><hr align="left" width="300" />
View this message in context: <a href="http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4727195.html">Re: Unifying Testing Ideas</a><br/>
Sent from the <a href="http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html">Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive</a> at Nabble.com.<br/>