On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Dial <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Why [introduce redundant test names]? >> >> assert_not_less_than = assert_greater_than_or_equal >> assert_not_greater_than = assert_less_than_or_equal >> assert_not_less_than_or_equal = assert_greater_than >> assert_not_greater_than_or_equal = assert_less_than > > To answer the question: The above tests are logically equivalent, but > the failure message would be different, reporting failure in terms of > what the caller wanted to test. > > I se your point though. I'd like to see what others think on this > issue. > >> Besides, ``assert_not_greater_than_or_equal`` is god-awful-long, >> along with the complaints about PEP-8-ifying. I wonder if it would >> be better to abbreviate these names with the *same name* that was >> used for the attribute in the operator module. Let's not reinvent >> the wheel here.. > > Interesting. So you advocate collapsing the above eight tests into the > following four: > > assert_lt > assert_gt > assert_le > assert_ge
Is any of this really necessary? Isn't this the equivalent of ``assert_(a < b)``? It seems like the only thing you get out of this is a nicer error message, but ``assert_(a < b, 'not %r <= %s' % (a, b))`` is not that complex. And do these cases really come up that often? I would want to see some numbers showing that these are really necessary (in both usage and people even specifying an error message in the first place). -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
