On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jonathan Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Michael Foord > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > assert_raises_with_message (exc_class, message, callable, *args, > > > **keywargs) > > > > > > > I don't think this one should go in. > > > > I think it would be better if assertRaises just returned the exception > > object that it catches. That way, you can test properties of the > > exception other than its message. > > Hm. I've got to say that returning the exception object is, um, an odd > API in the set of unittest APIs. I can see how it's sometimes more > powerful, but I'd say that in many cases assertRaisesWithMessage will > be easier to write and read. (And making it a regex match would be > even cooler.)
I don't know about odd. It works and it's not obviously terrible. Not having it the unittest API simply means that people who do want to test non-message properties will rewrite assertRaises. Which is, in fact, what we've already done. jml _______________________________________________ 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
