Being off topic, I'm just going to do a drive by and urge people that
are interested in following up to visit the TIP (testing in Python) list
at http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python.
Ron Adam wrote:
> I agree with this completely. Doctests are very useful for getting the
> basics
On 30 jun 2007, at 01.19, Ron Adam wrote:
> It would be cool if the documents files could also contain the doc
> tests
> instead of them being in the source code. I'm sure the could be
> done now,
> but there isn't a standard way to do this. Currently I create a
> seperate
> test module whi
Mark Hammond wrote:
> Barry writes:
>
>> On Jun 28, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> A good test suite can benefit from both doctests and unittests and I
>> don't think unittest will ever go away (nor should it), but in my
>> latest work I'm opting more and more for doctests.
>
> I fi
On 6/29/07, Leonardo Santagada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Em 29/06/2007, às 11:49, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
>
> > If I have any say in it, unittest isn't going away (unless replaced by
> > something very similar, and doctest ain't it). Religion is all fine
> > and well, as long as there's roo
Em 29/06/2007, às 11:49, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
> If I have any say in it, unittest isn't going away (unless replaced by
> something very similar, and doctest ain't it). Religion is all fine
> and well, as long as there's room for other views. I personally find
> using unit tests a lot easier
On Friday 29 June 2007 01:40, Chris McDonough wrote:
> I don't mind doctest at all really (I just use unittest out of
> inertia and personal preference, I'd probably just as happy with nose
> or whatever). I just don't like when folks advertise the same
> doctest as both a comprehensive set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since this has stopped being on-topic for this mailing list, so just
one last follow up from me.
On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> The question is more one of, "documentation for whom?". You can
> write separate documents for
At 01:40 AM 6/29/2007 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
>When coverage gets good, "documentation-ness" of tests suffers.
The question is more one of, "documentation for whom?". You can
write separate documents for library users than for library
extenders/developers. I don't put doctests in docstri
If I have any say in it, unittest isn't going away (unless replaced by
something very similar, and doctest ain't it). Religion is all fine
and well, as long as there's room for other views. I personally find
using unit tests a lot easier than using doctest, for many of the
things I tend to do (and
Greg Ewing wrote:
> So the reasons for keeping the comprehension notations
> are (a) slightly more convenient syntax and (b) maybe
> a bit faster.
Yes, I was actually agreeing with you on that point (I just got
sidetracked on a couple of technical quibbles, so my agreement may not
have been clea
10 matches
Mail list logo
