On 9/11/07, Amit Upadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/11/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time convincing me that this is > > a good idea. I'm willing to entertain the idea of validation helpers > > if they genuinely add clarity - but not if they are just a verbose > > replacement for something that Python can already express quite > > cleanly. > > The point is python is clear was very clear to the developers who wrote > unittest module too, they still went ahead with such helpers.
Well... no. assertEquals exists in Python unittests because assertEquals exists in JUnit, and unittest emulates the JUnit API. This API is, in turn, based on xUnit, which was derived from SUnit, the original Smalltalk implementation written by Kent Beck. The motivation in Python was to implement an xUnit API, not design a specifically Pythonic test API. > I have given > many examples where clarity is obvious, validation based on presence or > absence of certain exception for example, code gets cut down from 4 lines to > 1. If this is the case, then show us a complex example. The simple cases you have provided so far don't convince me. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
