On 26/11/2011 07:46, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan<ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord >> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: >>> On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum<guido at python.org> wrote: >>>>> Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I >>>>> really want this in Python 3.3! >>>> There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment). >>>> >>>> The main tracker issue for PEP 380 is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue11682 >>>> >>>> That's really just missing the doc updates - I haven't had a chance to >>>> look at Zbyszek's latest offering on that front, but it shouldn't be >>>> far off being complete (the *text* in his previous docs patch actually >>>> seemed reasonable - I mainly objected to way it was organised). >>>> >>>> However, the PEP 380 test suite updates have a dependency on a new dis >>>> module feature that provides an iterator over a structured description >>>> of bytecode instructions: http://bugs.python.org/issue11816 >>> >>> Is it necessary to test parts of PEP 380 through bytecode structures rather than semantics? Those tests aren't going to be usable by other implementations. >> The affected tests aren't testing the PEP 380 semantics, they're >> specifically testing CPython's bytecode generation for yield from >> expressions and disassembly of same. Just because they aren't of any >> interest to other implementations doesn't mean *we* don't need them :) >> >> There are plenty of behavioural tests to go along with the bytecode >> specific ones, and those *will* be useful to other implementations. >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> > I'm with nick on this one, seems like a very useful test, just > remember to mark it as @impl_detail (or however the decorator is > called). Fair enough. :-) If other tests are failing (the semantics are wrong) then having a test that shows you the semantics are screwed because the bytecode has been incorrectly generated will be a useful diagnostic tool. On the other hand it is hard to see that bytecode generation could be "wrong" without it affecting some test of semantics that should also fail - so as tests in their own right the bytecode tests *must* be superfluous (or there is some aspect of the semantics that is *only* tested through the bytecode and that seems bad, particularly for other implementations). All the best, Michael > Cheers, > fijal > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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