Barry Warsaw <barry <at> python.org> writes: > The goal > should be to produce something like a unittest-ng, distribute it via > the Cheeseshop, and gather consensus around it for possible inclusion > in Python 2.7/3.1. There is already unittest, nose, py.test, trial... perhaps others I don't know of. I fear writing yet another testing framework from the ground-up will lead to more bikeshedding and less focussed discussion (see some testing-in-python threads for an example :-)). nose itself is not a completely independent piece of work but "a discovery-based unittest extension" (although a very big extension!). For that reason, Michael Foord's suggestion to gradually modernize and improve the stdlib unittest sounds reasonable to me: it allows to be more focussed, keep backwards compatibility, and also to decide and implement changes piecewise - avoiding the blank sheet effect where people all push for wild ideas and radically new concepts (tm). (however, nose is LGPL-licensed so it would not be suitable for direct reuse of large chunks of code in the stdlib, unless the authors agree for a relicensing)
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