Allows developers to re-stub stubbed methods by adding a call to again()

Addresses https://github.com/pivotal/cedar/issues/284

Attempts were made at following existing coding conventions but feedback is welcome.
Should that be a separate story?

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jeff Hui <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

>>  
>>                          it(@"should raise an exception", ^{
>>                              myDouble stub_method("methodWithNumber1:andNumber2:").with(arg1, arg2).and_return(returnValue1);
>> -                            ^{ myDouble stub_method("methodWithNumber1:andNumber2:").with(arg1, arg2).and_return(@91); } should raise_exception().with_reason(@"The method <methodWithNumber1:andNumber2:> is already stubbed with arguments (<1><2>)");
>> +                            ^{ myDouble stub_method("methodWithNumber1:andNumber2:").with(arg1, arg2).and_return(@91); } should raise_exception.with_reason(@"The method <methodWithNumber1:andNumber2:> is already stubbed with arguments (<1><2>) - use again() to override");
> Is it better to have the arguments printed without as many angled brackets?
> Like:
> `arguments <1, 2>`
> or
> `arguments (1, 2)`
> Also of note: [have_received](https://github.com/pivotal/cedar/blob/RestubbableDoubles/Spec/Doubles/HaveReceivedSpec.mm#L454)'s error when parameters mismatch is of format: `<1, 2>`
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/pivotal/cedar/pull/296/files#r20903515