On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: > Benjamin Peterson schrieb: >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Samuele Pedroni <pedronis at openend.se> wrote: >>> Didn't a test fail because of this? seems the underlying issue is that this >>> part of the stdlib didn't have enough test coverage. It seems that having >>> very good/improving test coverage like is recommended for 3rd-party project >>> wanting to switch would be a good goal for 3.0 evolution too. We know from >>> PyPy experience that while always improving the test suite coverage is quite >>> spotty at times. >> >> No, a test didn't fail. Our new distutils maintainer, Tarek Ziade, >> though, has been increasing the distutils test coverage greatly. > > In addition to testing, this specific issue could have been found easily by > running something like pylint over the stdlib, because undefined globals > are one of the things they can detect with 100% accuracy... Oh, does pylint support py3k now? > > The hard thing about pylint of course is to get the signal/noise ratio right :) -- Regards, Benjamin
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