I think it's better for the test to fail, to indicate that there's an
unresolved problem on the platform.
On 9/4/07, Hasan Diwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 04/09/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is this on OSX? That test has been failing (because on that platform
> > sqrt(-
On 04/09/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is this on OSX? That test has been failing (because on that platform
> sqrt(-1) returns nan instead of raising ValueError) for years -- but
> the test is only run when run in verbose mode, which mostly hides the
> issue. Have you read th
Is this on OSX? That test has been failing (because on that platform
sqrt(-1) returns nan instead of raising ValueError) for years -- but
the test is only run when run in verbose mode, which mostly hides the
issue. Have you read the comment for the test?
On 9/4/07, Hasan Diwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm trying to fix a failing unit test in revision 57974. The test in
question claims that math.sqrt(-1) should raise ValueError; the code itself
gives "nan" as a result for that expression. I can modify the test and
therefore have it pass, but I'm not sure if an exception would be more
appropriate.
