Ah, I understand now. My understanding is that with zig and go, one does not DRY deferring, it's just a part of the idiom trade-offs between verbosity and expli

Ah, I understand now. My understanding is that with zig and go, one does not DRY deferring, it's just a part of the idiom trade-offs between verbosity and explicitness. So if bar, baz, quux aren't intrinsically related as a unit and might be mixed and matched arbitrarily, you just forego the whole ceremony and call each thing or the respective mock individually (the argument being that if you're making multiple different permutations, you're not repeating yourself per se; e.g. mocks don't need to be cleaned up in the first place) There's also something to be said about tests needing several arbitrary mocks. Normally, I'd consider that a smell. I've actually seen the pattern of making a kitchen sink foo for scenarios like that, but with nils/noops for unused things (can't say I like that approach though).