holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> writes: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:53 +0200, Ralf Schmitt wrote: >> holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> writes: >> >> > >> > If we are to optionally allow pytest_funcarg__ naming with @pytest.factory >> > i wonder if renaming @pytest.factory to @pytest.funcarg would make sense >> > and contribute to the notion that pytest-2.3 just extends funcarg >> > facilities. The reason i favored @factory is that it really marks a >> > factory function whereas "funcarg" more denotes the argument in a test >> > or setup function. Moreover, the pytest-2.2 documentation already talked >> > about factories when refering to pytest_funcarg__ functions. >> > (And @funcargfactory seems a tad long to me). >> > >> > However, i can't claim to have much of an outside view so i am interested >> > in your and other opinions. >> >> +1 for @pytest.funcarg (mostly because I like to grep for it) > > But that would work with "grep @pytest.factory" as well, wouldn't it?
probably, but that doesn't give me old funcarg factory functions. I have to admit that I didn't read the proposals and didn't follow the discussion closely. Calling the thing factory might be too broad. If pytest.funcarg does make sense (and you said it does), I'm now +2 for it. And since it looks like this should just be a shorter name for funcargfactory, I think 'funcarg' carries more meaning. With my previous vote that makes it +3 :) -- Cheers Ralf _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
