Re: [NMock2-Dev] Fire syntax

[Steve M. <Ste...@ty...>]

That's why I used 'Cause' instead of set,  I'm pretty sure that set
isn't a collision in any namespace.   Importing the NMock2 namespace is
just a convenience.  There's nothing from stopping anyone from not
'using' the NMock2 namespace and typing:

NMock2.Cause.Parameter(1).ToBe("Foo");

I do, however, want to avoid obvious collisions like 'Set'

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of
Charlie Poole
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:24 PM
To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion'
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Fire syntax

Hi All,=20

> I used Will(Set.Parameter("foo").To("bar")), but this, of=20
> course, will have problems in VB where Set is a keyword.

FWIW, I have been dealing with a similar issue in NUnit after
introducing a new syntax similar to NMock's. There are language
problems with VB, C++ and probably others I don't know about.

What I'm thinking of doing is putting the C# syntax into a=20
separate namespace and having one or more other assemblies
that provide a syntax tailored for other languages.

That way, other folks can provide alternative syntax layers
without colliding with the names used for C#.

Charlie



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NMock-two-dev mailing list
NMo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev