On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This would have been caught if there was a unit test validating what
> the documentation says. Why aren't there unit tests for this code? I
> think we need to raise the bar for "wholistic" improvements to a
> module: first write a unit test if
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:10:49 +0100, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> @@ -399,9 +393,8 @@
> >> del self[name] # Won't fail if it doesn't exist
> >> self.dict[name.lower()] = value
> >> text = name + ": " + value
> >> -lines = text.split("\n")
> >> -
>> @@ -399,9 +393,8 @@
>> del self[name] # Won't fail if it doesn't exist
>> self.dict[name.lower()] = value
>> text = name + ": " + value
>> -lines = text.split("\n")
>> -for line in lines:
>> -self.headers.append(line + "\n")
>> +self.h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> @@ -399,9 +393,8 @@
> del self[name] # Won't fail if it doesn't exist
> self.dict[name.lower()] = value
> text = name + ": " + value
> -lines = text.split("\n")
> -for line in lines:
> -self.headers.append(line + "\n")
