On 21/09/2011 21.08, Michael Foord wrote:
On 21/09/2011 18:02, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Georg Brandl writes:
> I don't think so. "skip if not" reads pretty well for me, while I
> always have to think twice about "unless" -- may be a non-native-
> speaker thing.
FWIW, speaking as one nativ
On 21/09/2011 18:02, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Georg Brandl writes:
> I don't think so. "skip if not" reads pretty well for me, while I
> always have to think twice about "unless" -- may be a non-native-
> speaker thing.
FWIW, speaking as one native speaker, I'm not sure about that.
Georg Brandl writes:
> I don't think so. "skip if not" reads pretty well for me, while I
> always have to think twice about "unless" -- may be a non-native-
> speaker thing.
FWIW, speaking as one native speaker, I'm not sure about that. "do ...
if not condition" doesn't bother me, whether I t
2011/9/21 Georg Brandl :
> Am 21.09.2011 15:25, schrieb Ezio Melotti:
>
>>> @@ -1205,6 +1214,18 @@
>>> minitemsize = 4
>>> tests.append(UnsignedLongTest)
>>>
>>> +@unittest.skipIf(not have_long_long, 'need long long support')
>>
>> I think this would read better with skipUnless and s/have/h
Am 21.09.2011 15:25, schrieb Ezio Melotti:
>> @@ -1205,6 +1214,18 @@
>> minitemsize = 4
>> tests.append(UnsignedLongTest)
>>
>> +@unittest.skipIf(not have_long_long, 'need long long support')
>
> I think this would read better with skipUnless and s/have/has/:
>
> @unittest.skipUnless(HAS
