RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 15 15:05:33 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081141.html

Ben Finney wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> 
> > Ben Finney writes:
> > 
> >  > Removal of ``assert*`` names
> >  > ----------------------------
> >  > 
> >  > There is no overwhelming consensus on whether to remove the
> >  > ``assert*`` names or the ``fail*`` names;
> > 
> > 7 to 1 is overwhelming in my book.  See
> > Message-ID: <loom.20080714T230912-310 at post.gmane.org>
> > From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> 
> That measured only usage of unittest *within the Python standard
> library*. Is that the only body of unittest-using code we need
> consider?

Three more data points then:

bzr: 13228 assert* vs. 770 fail*.

Twisted: 6149 assert* vs. 1666 fail*.

paramiko: 431 assert* vs. 4 fail*.

The data seems pretty overwhelmingly in favour of keeping assert*. 

-Andrew.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081141.html below:

Consolidating names and classes in the `unittest` module (updated 2008-07-15)