On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:35, Guido van Rossum wrote: > This would have been caught if there was a unit test validating what > the documentation says. Why aren't there unit tests for this code? I > think we need to raise the bar for "wholistic" improvements to a > module: first write a unit test if there isn't already one (and if > there is one, make sure that it tests all documented behavior), *then* > refactor. Yes, this would be less fun. It's not supposed to be fun. > It's supposed to avoid breaking code.
+1. This module is used in so many place, you really have to take the documented interface seriously (not that you shouldn't otherwise, of course). I suspect even the undocumented current semantics are relied on in many place. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
