Francis Hwang <sera / fhwang.net> wrote:
> Well, it's interesting, I think some of us would like something like 
> this to be really distracting, and others would like it to be 
> completely transparent. The two are pretty opposite in my mind, but I 
> suppose there's no reason I couldn't support both, with an option to 
> use one or the other depending on what files get included. Maybe by 
> default we'd use, say MockFS.file and MockFS.file_utils to get the 
> classes, but then if you wanted you could have your code simply use 
> File and FileUtils, your test code could require 'mockfs/voodoo' or 
> some such file to redefine those constants. I'll have to look into the 
> details.

Or you could tuck it into a module, e.g. Mock::FileSystem, and then
include Mock or not depending.

martin