Ben Finney writes: > Removal of ``assert*`` names > ---------------------------- > > There is no overwhelming consensus on whether to remove the > ``assert*`` names or the ``fail*`` names;
7 to 1 is overwhelming in my book. See Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> While people's preferences are important, I think there is a very good case to made that keeping this much continuity in the test suite as possible is more so. > * Explicit is better than implicit: The ``fail*`` names state *what > the function will do* explicitly: fail the test. With the > ``assert*`` names, the action to be taken is only implicit. EIBTI applies with the most force to "local" names, ie, specific to a particular function, class, or program. Here we propose to impose a community-wide convention. I think we can document it explicitly and expect near-instant uptake on the appropriate connotations to "assert" (especially since that connotation is pretty much universal across languages with an assert facility, anyway). > * Avoid false implication: The test methods do not have any necessary > connection with the built-in ``assert`` statement. Data point: Use of `Assert' as a test method in the XEmacs test suite has never caused any confusion with either C-level asserts, or with the Lisp function `assert'. _______________________________________________ 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
