We've tended to call these objects "partial mocks", but I'm thinking we may not want to call the config option that.  Reason being, we used to have `mock` and `stub` as aliases for `double` (and actually, IIRC `mock` and `stub` came first, and `double` was added as an alias after the "test double" terminology developed later).  In RSpec we are doing away with `mock` and `stub` because it's imprecise and causes confusion; [mocks aren't stubs](http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html) and really mock vs stub is a property of a particular method, and not a property of the object itself.  You could have a test double that has only stubbed methods, and calling it a "mock" is confusing.  Likewise, you could have a test double that has only mocked methods, and calling it a "stub" would be confusing.

It seems like introducing the term "partial mock" into our config API is a step backwards from the clarity/unity of using the term "double" that we've arrived at.

Not sure of a better name, but a few suggestions to get the ball rolling:

* `verify_real_objects`
* `verify_concrete_objects`
* `verify_non_doubles`
* `verify_partial_doubles`

Whatever we choose, it would probably be good to update the README and any other documentation to use that term.