On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Eloi Gaudry <eloi.gau...@fft.be> wrote:
> My choice of words might not be the best, yes.
> I do see to different meanings and/or context for the historical assert and
> the one I propose:
> the first one would be something saying that, as a developer, when writing
>>>> assert (expr)
> in my python code, I mean that all my unit tests and real life tests I could
> think of should succeed the test. I do mean "don't go further, I might not
> know where you come from or where you intend to go or why you are behaving as
> such, but you failed to meet this and/or this criteria/condition".
> the second one is there to activate some other checks, not while developing,
> just at runtime when the user uses my extension and want to get some
> diagnostics/enforcing checks to happen, because he/she is using something I
> couldn't think of in the first place, something that would not have been
> checked before.
> Yes, those checks might be considered as identical in a language sense, but
> then : as an extension/interpreter writer, why should I only rely on the
> debug assert available today? Why would it not make sense to offer another
> assert, semantically different, aiming at runtime checks issues and this time
> where control is indeed by the consumer/the extension?
No, they're not identical. The first one is an assertion; the second
is simply an 'if' and a 'raise'. It doesn't need any special syntax -
all you need is standard exception creation.
if not values:
raise ValueError("Cannot calculate average of empty collection")
This should not be an assertion, "run-time" or otherwise. You never
want to disable it.
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/