RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 15 08:55:59 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081120.html

Ben Finney wrote:

> I'd count this as another (minor) point in favour of making the 'fail*'
> methods canonical: the names are consistent *and* gramatically sensible:

-1

I'm surprised nobody (that I've noticed) has brought up the point yet that
test code is a lot easier to read if it makes positive assertions. When
reading failure conditions, one has to constantly invert them in order to
deduce the behaviour that is tested. failUnless and friends aren't better
either IMO since while they do work with positive assertions, the method
names themselves are doubly negative. assert* methods are so much more
straightforward to comprehend.

-- 
Thomas

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081120.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes