On 16/07/2015 16:27, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 16 July 2015 at 20:35, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In which version? I don't see that phrase in the 3.5 docs.
The equivalent note in 3.x is Do not use stdout=PIPE or stderr=PIPE
with this function. The child process will block if it
On 17 July 2015 at 09:35, Alexander xr.li...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, I've also been bitten by this several times, so I
appreciate the desire to at least warn users (or raise an exception, or
whatever).
It is not an intention to make tests more robust. It is the
implementation, which is
On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
advance of being bitten by those additions.
That's not what people are doing. Folks are actually arguing for
*restoring* the ability to mock out method
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:37:04PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The specific typo that is checked is the only one that changes the
spelling without also changing the overall length and shape of the
word.
I don't think your comment above is correct.
assert = aasert aseert azzert essert
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-07-10 - 2015-07-17)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open4947 (+19)
closed 31468 (+29)
total 36415 (+48)
Open issues
Nothing huge to add, and I'm not experienced using mock. But the special
handling of 'assret' as a misspelling of 'assert' definitely strikes me
as a wart also. That sort of thing really has no place in a library
itself, but rather only in a linter.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Steven
On 18 Jul 2015 8:13 am, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 07/16/2015 11:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney wrote:
By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
advance of being bitten by those additions.
That's not what
On 18 July 2015 at 15:19, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
This change *doesn't really matter* in the grand scheme things, but would
require a non-zero amount of time and effort to reverse, so unless you're
offering one of the unittest maintainers a contract gig to change it back,
let
On 18 Jul 2015 10:40 am, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
advance of being bitten by those
Antoine Pitrou writes:
Frankly, this kind of inept discussion,
I think you misunderstand what's going on. The people who advocate
removal of a gratuitous special case may lack your perspective, but
they're not incompetent to understand it. Specifically, you have a
senior committer's
Frankly, this kind of inept discussion, where a bunch of folks get hung
up about an extremely minor design decision (who cares whether assret
is being special-cased or not? in the actual world, not the fantasy
world of righteous indignation and armchair architects?), is amongst
the reasons why
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com writes:
On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
advance of being bitten by those additions.
That's not what people are doing. Folks are actually arguing for
On 07/16/2015 11:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney wrote:
By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
advance of being bitten by those additions.
That's not what people are doing. Folks are actually arguing for
*restoring* the ability
On 18/07/2015 01:00, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
I am tempted to reply with a slightly sarcastic message involving a
cookie...
I'm not tempted, I will ask, what the hell are you on about?
On July 17, 2015 6:40:21 PM CDT, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Frankly, this kind of inept
On 07/17/2015 05:11 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Do NOT spend days nitpicking tiny details of work that has already been done
to the point where people are wondering why they bother giving the gift of
their time and contributions to our community.
You mean like you keep expressing dismay and
I am tempted to reply with a slightly sarcastic message involving a cookie...
On July 17, 2015 6:40:21 PM CDT, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Frankly, this kind of inept discussion, where a bunch of folks get hung
up about an extremely minor design decision (who cares whether assret
16 matches
Mail list logo
