Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: .. > +1 for not having pragma statements in the stdlib, especially when they > target a third-party tool few of us know and use. "#pragma NO COVER" is recognized by stdlib trace module, so it is not specific to a third-party tool. I don't like #pragma myself. This is very "unpythonic" choice. I would be much happier if it was simply '# NO COVER' or something even less conspicuous. I do believe, however that some mechanism should be used to prevent trace from highlighting spurious lines as lacking coverage. > Beside, while coverage measurements are useful, trusting them that actual > coverage is complete is IMO a bit foolish. > It's not just about running every line of code. Agree, but running every line of code is a good first step. For example, it is *very* useful for identifying lack of coverage for error conditions. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11572> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
