> On 26 Apr 2019, at 05:47, Ram Rachum <r...@rachum.com> wrote: > > Ah, I thought about it now and Ned is right. This would require modifications > to ceval.c and others.
Pity! > The question is... Does anyone else think it's a good idea? I do. It seems to me that coverage is a very useful tool that shouldn’t be unusable for certain programs if we can avoid it. If we should include it in CPython in the end probably depends on how much it complicates the implementation and/or how solid tests are written obviously. I would point out that we can still get another coverage metric for these scenarios though: mutation coverage. But that’s extremely slow to collect compared to traditional coverage. / Anders _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
