On 04/27/2018 05:11 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > In this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed > accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g., > > x = f() or g() > > You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP > unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a > binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new > potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal" ;-) FWIW, Ned Batchelder's 'coverage.py' does a good job with branch coverage. I haven't seen anything in this discussion which indicates that binding expressions will change that at all.
Tres. -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
