On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:35, Guido van Rossum wrote: > This would have been caught if there was a unit test validating what > the documentation says. Why aren't there unit tests for this code? I > think we need to raise the bar for "wholistic" improvements to a > module: first write a unit test if there isn't already one (and if > there is one, make sure that it tests all documented behavior), *then* > refactor. Yes, this would be less fun. It's not supposed to be fun. > It's supposed to avoid breaking code. +1. This module is used in so many place, you really have to take the documented interface seriously (not that you shouldn't otherwise, of course). I suspect even the undocumented current semantics are relied on in many place. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050208/6bed0e61/attachment.pgp
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