[ruby-talk:20578] Re: To those who want abstract classes in R uby

Hi, Nat!

Also las ich bei Nat Pryce [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 
> [...] 
>
> IMHO, the best way to document protocols is to use unit tests and mock
> objects.  This gives you a precise, executable definition of 
> protocols that
> can be used to automatically test objects for conformance to those
> protocols.  I have written a package for writing mock objects 
> with the RUnit
> framework which I will release in the next few days.  I'll 
> announce it to
> this mailing list and add it to the RAA.

I'm sorry, I've never heard the term `mock object' before, but 
I think I can guess it out.  To be metaphorical:  A mock object 
seems to be something like a holo object.  If you know Star Trek you 
will also know that there is a special region called the holo deck.
Within this holo deck you can tell the computer to generate sceneries
and characters at will, and the computer will generate holo objects
according to the `classes' it has got in its memory. After this 
generation you can act with the holos just as you would act with the 
real buildings, countries, people, tools -- and wouldn't notice any 
difference.

I remember that Jordi LaForge had his best ideas about technical 
problems when he was simulating them within the holo deck.

Is it this what mock objects are all about?

--

Matthias Lampert, Hamburg
Just another XP and Ruby fan.