On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200 Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > > However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the > PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for > exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic differences > in comparison to generic Python code.
True. But then we're much better without a formal requirement that some people will start trying to require because they don't understand that its metric is pointless. > I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch > the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from > integration, but needs solid reasoning, review and testing in the wild in > order to be considered an equivalent alternative implementation. > But then > again, this should actually be required anyway, even for code with an > exceedingly high test coverage. I'm not sure what kind of "testing in the wild" you refer to. If you mean that it should have e.g. been published on the Cheeseshop, I don't think that's an useful requirement for an accelerator module. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
