Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > What if use totalsize = object.__sizeof__(struct_obj) ?
That would defeat the purpose of the test. We want to test whether __sizeof__ is correct, so we shouldn't use __sizeof__ in the test to compute the expected result. I understand that object.__sizeof__ is actually a different implementation, but still: there might be errors e.g. in the type definition that cancel out errors in the sizeof implementation. The more "directly" the expected result is computed, the better. I also realize that such tests will be fragile if the the structures change. This is a good thing, IMO: anybody changing the layout of some object should *have* to verify that the size computation is still correct, so it's good that the test breaks if the structures change. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15402> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
