On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > > * Positive admonition: The ``assert*`` names state the intent of how > > the code under test *should* behave, while the ``fail*`` names are > > phrased in terms of how the code *should not* behave. > > FWIW, I think these are fairly stated. So fairly that I'm surprised > you haven't been persuaded!<wink> Nitpick: the second point is not > just "precedent", there's an economic reason there too. Tests in the > standard distribution which use the deprecated style will need to be > converted. Steven d'Aprano claims this is nontrivial (and thus error- > prone) in some cases. I haven't seen that claim denied, and it seems > plausible to me. I'd like to see examples of that (this would be Steven's task if he's serious about his assertion). Since the fail and assert names are mapped to each other using aliasing I don't see how it could be nontrivial to map e.g. self.failIf(x) to self.assertFalse(x) -- these are the same function! -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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