Revert PRs with changes that require more analysis

[ernesto-jimenez]

Reverts:

• diffArguments: remove unnecessary range-for #417: bug was already fixed in another PR and code was unformatted
• Added goconvey style assertions to the mock package #430: added exported functions had confusing names and code was unformatted
• add mock.MethodCalled(methodName, args...) #439: exported an internal method

@DAddYE FYI

[ernesto-jimenez]

@DAddYE addressing #430 and #439 needs some analysis

We must be very careful with what we export.

[ernesto-jimenez]

FYI @josephholsten @KingofSouth and @yiminc

[josephholsten]

@ernesto-jimenez: looks like my patch was redundant, revert is the right move for it. Thanks for the follow up!

[yiminc-zz]

@ernesto-jimenez, #439 is to support a very valid use case, see issue #437 Please help on what else we could do to make that use case possible. Thanks.

[tamccall]

@ernesto-jimenez reopened my pull request here. Ran go fmt sorry for missing that before. Let me know if any explanations are needed or if you would like changes to function naming. I mostly tried to keep the naming convention that was already in place in the various assert functions only dropping the assert verb such that it would read better in the so clauses.

[yiminc-zz]

@ernesto-jimenez reopened my PR here #444. This new PR avoid exposing internal method, also added documentation to the new methods. Please put comments to the PR if you would like anything to be changed. Thanks.

[ernesto-jimenez]

Replied to both PRs. Thank you all!