RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jul 17 00:49:13 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081283.html

"Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> writes:

> Having skimmed much material about proposed changes to the venerable
> unitest module, I'd like to set some boundaries. PEPs that don't
> follow the following rules are very unlikely to be accepted.

Thanks for giving the attention to this topic and producing a
pronouncement.

> 1. The API is not going to be renamed to PEP-8 conformance.
[...]

> 3. I like assertEqual better than failUnlessEqual (and similar for
> all assert* versions in favor of their fail* alias), and I don't
> like that there is both assertEqual and assertEquals. But rule #1
> means we have to live with the aliases. At best we can discourage
> the undesirables by documenting them out of existence.

These two together kill any interest I have in being PEP champion for
unittest changes, or on putting effort into the changes.

Thanks, everyone, for the lively discussion.

-- 
 \      “The way to build large Python applications is to componentize |
  `\             and loosely-couple the hell out of everything.” —Aahz |
_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/081283.html below:

[Python-Dev] Unittest PEP do's and don'ts (BDFL pronouncement)