2010/11/2 Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com>: > On Nov 1, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I think the issue here is that the file structure of the code no > longer matches the public API documented by unittest. Personally I, > like most people it seems, prefer source files to be structured in a > way to match the public API. In the case of unittest Michael didn't. > He did ask python-dev if it was okay to do what he did, we all kept > quiet, and now we have realized that most of us prefer to have files > that mirror the API; lesson learned. But Python 2.7 shipped with this > file layout so we have to stick with it lest we break any imports out > there that use the package-like file structure Michael went with > (which we could actually document and use if we wanted now that > Michael has already broken things up). Reversing the trend by sticking > all the code into unittest/__init__.py and then sticking import shims > into the existing modules would be a stupid waste of time, especially > considering the head maintainer of the package likes it the way it is. > > I'm not sure I follow where we're stuck with the current package. > AFAICT, the module is still used with "import unittest". > The file splitting was done badly, so I don't think there any of the > components are usable directly, i.e. "from unitest.case import SkipTest". > Also, I don't think the package structure was documented or announced. > This is in contrast to the logging module which does have a > clean separation of components and where it isn't unusual > to import just part of the package.
See http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/2.7.html#updated-module-unittest -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
