On 12/01/2015 13:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Skip Montanaro wrote:
ISTR that when Tim Peters first implemented first, the typical way you
were expected to get tests into a doc string was to copy from an
interactive session, which would not have this problem.
I believe that is still documented
Skip Montanaro wrote:
ISTR that when Tim Peters first implemented first, the typical way you
were expected to get tests into a doc string was to copy from an
interactive session, which would not have this problem.
I believe that is still documented as the way to generate doctests.
Also, to
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Skip Montanaro
skip.montan...@gmail.com wrote:
... first implemented first ...
s/first/doctest/
Darn auto-correct...
Skip
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
ISTR that when Tim Peters first implemented first, the typical way you were
expected to get tests into a doc string was to copy from an interactive
session, which would not have this problem.
Also, to Steven's comment about fussiness, it isn't so much that it's
fussy. It's more that it's dumb. I
Mark Lawrence wrote:
If doctest is dumb then that's clearly down to the author. Perhaps we
should refer him or her to the Zen of Python so they don't repeat the
mistake with future design decisions?
o_O
I don't even ...
wait ...
[starts typing]
[stops typing]
... okay.
--
Steven
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I didn't mean to give the impression that doctest was wrong to be fussy, or
dumb if you prefer. I think it's exactly the right behaviour.
I wasn't actually concerned that Steven might have
On 1/11/15 11:20 PM, gordianknot1...@gmail.com wrote:
It failed with an unknown reason that evaluate two expected equal value but got
an unexpected result! I'm struggling with this problem for a long time. Did I
did something wrong? And how do I to fix it?
any help is appreciated. :)
My
On 12/01/2015 15:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
If doctest is dumb then that's clearly down to the author. Perhaps we
should refer him or her to the Zen of Python so they don't repeat the
mistake with future design decisions?
o_O
I don't even ...
wait ...
[starts
--
My recommendation is to use doctest to test the code samples that
naturally occur in your docstrings, but not to use it as a
general-purpose testing tool. It has too many limitations and quirks,
and if you're going to write
gordian...@gmail.com於 2015年1月12日星期一 UTC+8下午12時20分46秒寫道：
#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import re
kivy_class_ptn = re.compile(r\b[\w_.\@\+]+:?)
def test_kivy_class(s):
s = MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:
test_kivy_class(s)
MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:
#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import re
kivy_class_ptn = re.compile(r\b[\w_.\@\+]+:?)
def test_kivy_class(s):
s = MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:
test_kivy_class(s)
MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:
s = MYBT
test_kivy_class(s)
MYBT
ret =
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:20:35 -0800, gordianknot1981 wrote:
[...]
Expected:
MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:
Got:
'MYBT@ToggleButton+Button:'
doctest is *very* fussy about the strings matching exactly. You have to
use single quotes.
I've been burned by this once or twice...
--
Steve
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
