Ben Finney wrote:
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael Foord wrote:
Adding the following new asserts:
assertIn (member, container, msg=None)
assertNotIn (member, container, msg=None)
assertIs (first, second, msg=None)
assertNotIs (first, second, msg=None)
Please, let's call this one "assertIsNot". I know it's valid Python
to say
if a not is b:
but it's a much less natural way of expressing the condition, and
(for all I know) might even introduce an extra negation operation.
"is not" is, I believe, treated as a single operator.
Dang. You're exactly right.
The problem is, that makes it quite inconsistent with other "not" uses
(such as "assert_not_equal", "assert_not_in", etc.) I would really
prefer that all these "not" uses be gramatically consistent for
predictability. Is this a case where "assert_is_not" should exist
alongside "assert_not_is"?
If we can flip the word order in the language syntax, we can sure as
heck flip it in a method name :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
