syntactic sugar

[szczepiq]

Can we have in Python syntactic sugar ala Ruby?

2.times
3.times

so that:

verify(mock, 2.times).foo()

[Bartosz Bańkowski]

To omit parenthesis you can do something like that:

def a():
return 1

b = a()

b

But if you want to add a method to int class you get a nice error:

TypeError: can't set attributes of built-in/extension type 'int'

[Simon Brunning]

This won't work for so many reasons it's not true. Even times.2
wouldn't get parsed properly. What's wrong with times(2)? This is
Python - we'll have none of your rubyesqe "never mind seeing if the
existing syntax will work - let's build a DSL!" here, thank you. ;-)

Cheers,
Simon B.
si...@brunningonline.net
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/
GTalk: simon.brunning | MSN: small_values | Yahoo: smallvalues |
Twitter: brunns

[szczepiq]

c'mon, don't tell me you don't like 3.times sugar. It's just beautiful :)

I went for times(2). We could discuss the best syntax forever and
still whatever we chose, times(x) is still used occasionally.

Here are all the cool ways I considered (and there are probably plenty more):

verify(mock, times(3)).foo()
verify(mock, _3.times).foo()
verify(mock, x3).foo()
verify(mock, x3.times).foo()
verify(mock).foo().times(3)

Yet, I decided to go for good old times(x)

cheers,
Szczepan

[Bartosz Bańkowski]

Don't forget about my favorite:

verify(mock, times=3).foo()