----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Peters" <tim.one@comcast.net>
> [David Abrahams]
> > In general, I can change my doctests to use assert rather than
looking
> > for 1 or 0.
>
> If you want x-version doctests, you could change
>
> """
> >>> boolean_expect_true
> 1
> >>> boolean_expect_false
> 0
> """
>
> to, e.g.,
>
> """
> >>> boolean_expect_true and 1
> 1
> >>> boolean_expect_false or 0
> 0
> """
>
> Then you won't get hosed by -O (as an assert would do).
...I guess I can see why you're really intending that
>>> 0 or False
False
but
>>> False or 0
0
This sure rubs all my expectations for a bool the wrong way, though. I
think I'd better just write my own assertion routine, as Guido
suggested. I don't like non-obvious language constructs for something so
simple (I'd mention ?: here but I don't need the bruises).
> You may not run
> doctests with -O today, but the more -O does over time the more
important it
> will become to do so.
Yes.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4