I think doctests can be good, but for now I think we'll leave them out... maybe we could add them in for a future time.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Dudfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True, doctest is in the standard library :) > >>> but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs would have them too > > The impression I got from reading the python testing archives is that is > where it's strength is. Testable documentation sprinkled lightly throughout > the source. > > Perhaps there is room for doctest. I personally am not against the idea. At > the end of the day it's not up to me but we can certainly discuss with > others. > > What do you personally find the biggest advantage of doctest is? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Toni Alatalo > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [pygame] pygame unittests > > Nicholas Dudfield wrote: >> Also, I am under the impression people want to stick with unittest. Been >> wrong a zillion times before though. >> > > i have not followed the situation recently, have used previously things > like py.test and seen that like you told many testing frameworks have > come around > > doctests are a part of the standard lib already so at least it's gonna > be around, is not anymore yet-another-exotic-testing-tool, and has the > unique feats that target other areas than the other libs. i guess people > use several to complement, even. > > may not be best suited for everything, like some internal technical > regressions perhaps, but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs > would have them too.. might be even an interesting area to start from, > dunno :o > > ~Toni > >
