RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 13 00:38:32 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110658.html

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:34:42 -0500
Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
> 2011/4/12 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0200
> > brett.cannon <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
> >> Technical details of
> >> +the VM providing the accelerated code are allowed to differ as
> >> +necessary, e.g., a class being a ``type`` when implemented in C.
> >
> > I don't understand what this means ("a class being a ``type`` when
> > implemented in C").
> >
> >> +If this test were to provide 100% branch coverage for
> >> +``heapq.heappop()`` in the pure Python implementation then the
> >> +accelerated C code would be allowed to be added to CPython's standard
> >> +library. If it did not, then the test suite would need to be updated
> >> +until 100% branch coverage was provided before the accelerated C code
> >> +could be added.
> >
> > I really think that's a too strong requirement. We don't want to
> > paralyze development until the stdlib gets 100% coverage in the tests
> > suite.
> 
> Presumably this only applies to new code, though, which I would hope
> would have comprehensive test coverage regardless of this PEP.

True, but comprehensive test coverage is not the same as a formal
requirement of 100% coverage.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110658.html below:

Update PEP 399 to include comments from python-dev.