Carl Banks wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
than it is. :-)
ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
them
generate a more verbose traceback.
Personally, I'd rather see it get less
On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
disregarded.
Experienced C coders expect assert to behave
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
disregarded.
Experienced C
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
disregarded.
Experienced C coders
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
Firstly, print statements work even if you pass the -O (optimize) flag
to Python. Your asserts don't.
Secondly, a bare
Calvin Spealman wrote:
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
Hah!
Firstly, print statements work
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:38:42 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:38:42 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
Hah!
Firstly, print statements work even if you pass the -O
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:01:35 -0600, Ron Adam wrote:
There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
than it is. :-)
ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
them
generate a more verbose traceback.
If you want something
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:01:35 -0600, Ron Adam wrote:
There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more
assertive
than it is. :-)
ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
them
generate a more verbose
Ron Adam wrote:
There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
than it is. :-)
ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having them
generate a more verbose traceback.
Personally, I'd rather see it get less assertive, i.e., having it
12 matches
Mail list logo
