Blair Conrad

@thomaslevesque, have you seen https://github.com/FakeItEasy/FakeItEasy/issues/205#issuecomment-179182646? I think that where I said > we could still explore providing open generic methods, if there's interest. I meant > we could still explore...

This issue has gotten some interest, largely due to #1884 being asked. It's probably time to start working on it! What do we want to provide? Here are possibilities that...

Hey, @Mertsch. I'm sorry you had a bad experience. My initial reaction is that suppressing the exceptions in user-supplied callbacks worries me. To my mind (and I know this may...

@Mertsch, I like the suggestion too, although I'd suggest some small changes. 1. I think it'd be slightly more clear if the message read "…when matching against call". Maybe I...

Hi, @lucasteles. Thanks for raising this. Just to make sure I understand correctly, you're essentially proposing an alternative syntax for ```c# A.CallTo(() => mock.Double(2)).MustHaveHappened() .Then(A.CallTo(() => mock.Double(4)).MustHaveHappened()) .Then(A.CallTo(() => mock.Double(5)).MustHaveHappened());...

@lucasteles, I understand your reticence to include a loop in your test, but it might not be hard to hide it within a method. Hmm. Lemme try something. I'm back....

Huh. That seems to pass when the calls are made in the right order, and also when they aren't! @thomaslevesque, even your original fails, which surprises me: ```c# [Test] public...

Oh, thanks, @thomaslevesque. :blush: Of course.

I incorporated the fix into https://github.com/FakeItEasy/FakeItEasy/issues/1581#issuecomment-472996795 as well.

I can't help but think that the old Fake Scopes facility would probably have been perfect for this. You introduced a scope, and then new configuration and actions would be...