Re: [NMock2-Dev] Re: mocking interface with generic list property

[Joe P. <joe...@gm...>]

i agree with mike on the definition of two lists being equal.

as i imagine this is the most common definition, i'd find it convenient if =
a
built-in ListMatcher (perhaps like the one mike has in the tutorial) was th=
e
default matcher used by nmock2 when comparing two lists.  and in the
scenario where order doesn't matter, bring on the custom matcher.

- joe

On 3/1/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/06, Joe Ross <joe...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > I'm not involved in the development of NMock2 obviously, but the
> > question I raise is whether or not everyone's definition of two lists
> > being equal is the same.  My definition for my purpose was that each
> > list contained the same items in the same order.  Someone else might
> > only care about the same items being in each list but not necessarily
> > the same order.  I realize there is also a SortedList<T> in .NET 2.0,
> > but I want to use List<T> and add the objects in the correct order
> > based on business logic
>
>
> Well to me, if I'm using a List I would say I did care about order of
> items. If I didn't care, I'd use a Set or a Bag. Problem is neither of th=
ose
> are built-in types for .NET (which is an entirely different rant ;-) ).
>
> I was just thinking that "check lists are not null, same size, and each
> object in turn .Equals() the corresponding object in the other list" is a
> piece of code most people are gonna end up writing, so maybe we should
> provide it.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.
>