Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > and so on; i.e. that 'assert_is_not' breaks the obvious pattern
> > set by the others, in the interest of matching Python's 'is not'
> > grammar.
>
> Well, I'd have said "in the interest of reading correctly in English",
> though I have to acknowledge this may not be an issue for many Python
> users whose first language not is English. "assert_not_is" is just
> dissonant to my ears.
I'd count this as another (minor) point in favour of making the
'fail*' methods canonical: the names are consistent *and* gramatically
sensible:
fail_if_equal fail_unless_equal
fail_if_is fail_unless_is
fail_if_in fail_unless_in
fail_if_almost_equal fail_unless_almost_equal
--
\ “We are not gonna be great; we are not gonna be amazing; we are |
`\ gonna be *amazingly* amazing!” —Zaphod Beeblebrox, _The |
_o__) Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy_, Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney
_______________________________________________
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
