Andrew Bennetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > That measured only usage of unittest *within the Python standard > > library*. Is that the only body of unittest-using code we need > > consider? > > Three more data points then: > > bzr: 13228 assert* vs. 770 fail*. > Twisted: 6149 assert* vs. 1666 fail*. > paramiko: 431 assert* vs. 4 fail*. > > The data seems pretty overwhelmingly in favour of keeping assert*.
Noted, thanks. So far I have "precedent and tradition" and "positive admonition looks better" in support of preferring the 'assert*' names. Are there any others? I believe I've stated (in the most-recent PEP revision) the strongest reasons in favour of the 'fail*' names. This all gets summarised in the Rationale section for the PEP. -- \ “Killing the creator was the traditional method of patent | `\ protection” —Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ | _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
