RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 15 15:48:08 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081149.html

Andrew Bennetts <andrew-pythondev at puzzling.org> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> > > 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*. 

Noted, thanks.

So far I have "precedent and tradition" and "positive admonition looks
better" in support of preferring the 'assert*' names. Are there any
others?

I believe I've stated (in the most-recent PEP revision) the strongest
reasons in favour of the 'fail*' names.

This all gets summarised in the Rationale section for the PEP.

-- 
 \           “Killing the creator was the traditional method of patent |
  `\                        protection” —Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081149.html below:

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