Ben Finney wrote:
Scott Dial <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why [introduce redundant test names]?
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 can see how this argument makes sense, and is distinct from the fail*
vs. assert* discussion. As you say, I'm interested what other think
about this.
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
I would argue to go even further:
assertEqual = assert_eq
assertAlmostEqual = assert_almost_eq
assertNotEqual = assert_ne
assertNotAlmostEqual = assert_almost_ne
I'm not sure if there are others, but using the same abbreviations from
operator is consistent and readable and short, in my opinion.
--
Scott Dial
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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
