I dont like the name funcarg for those cases, since its not really descriptive of what it is anymore
Naming things different from what they are creates extra mental ballast i don't want to have back when we only had funcargs, the name "funcarg" was descriptive, now it isn't anymore, since we have a lot more On 08/03/2012 11:15 AM, Ralf Schmitt wrote: > 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 :) > _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
