Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem with "fail*" is that you get names like "failIfNotEqual"
That would better be written (preferring PEP 8 names) "fail_unless_equal". > (or perhaps even "failUnlessNotEqual") idem, "fail_if_equal". > which are double negatives Exactly. With "if" and "unless" at our disposal, we can avoid such double negatives. > (not to mention "assert" is a widely established name in various > languages - including Python - for checking that things went as > expected) That's another reason to avoid "assert" in the name: these methods *don't* necessarily use the 'assert' statement. Avoiding the implication that they do use that is a good thing. -- \ “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands | `\ it.” —Albert Einstein | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
