It seems that the 'with' method can be merged with the method name expectation.
This would make mocks shorter and easier to read for some people.

Here are a couple of examples with their equivalent current syntax:

the_mock.expects.foo(1,2) {|a, b| :bar}
the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2) {|a, b| :bar}

the_mock.expects.foo(1,2).returns(:bar)
the_mock.expects.(:foo).with(1,2).returns(:bar)

Also, please look at the mock block feature request.
WDYT?

Date: 2009-01-02 16:46
Sender: James Mead

This feature request has moved to Lighthouse [1].

[1] http://floehopper.lighthouseapp.com/projects/22289/tickets/4

Date: 2007-11-05 10:06
Sender: James Mead

Hi Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to submit a patch. I agree with you
about Brian's second example being the more compelling.

There's clearly a trade-off between adding extra complexity to
the Mocha code-base and providing an alternative API. This is
a judgement call and depends somewhat on the perceived usefulness
of the alternative API. While I like the expected method call
looking more like the actual call, I don't particularly like
the dot between the expects and foo.

I have some other ideas about this, but in the meantime I'll
take a look at your patch and see how much complexity it adds.
You might want to look at Brian's rubyforge project
- http://rubyforge.org/projects/mocha-shot/ which is a mini fork
of Mocha.

Thanks again for your interest.

Cheers, James.
http://blog.floehopper.org

Date: 2007-10-31 15:00
Sender: Steve Purcell

Okay, so I'm not permitted to attach a file to this ticket, so
I've filed my patch as #15235.  ("Patches" section
of "Tracker" for this project.)

Date: 2007-10-31 14:54
Sender: Steve Purcell

I agree.  I implemented this feature in my own (otherwise inferior)
precursor to Mocha, called mockr
(http://dev.sanityinc.com/mockr/).

Before seeing this ticket I sat down to add this "pseudo
call" behaviour to Mocha.  The attached patch implements
it in what I believe is a simpler and less intrusive way.

Note that I do not support passing block-based parameter constraints,
such as in the first of Brian's examples, since I believe it
can be confusing -- Brian's second example is the compelling
day-to-day case.

Date: 2007-05-02 09:20
Sender: Brian Takita

I am posting a patch that implements this. It's actually
pretty simple.