On 07/19/2015 11:52 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Seems to me a lot of fuss could have been avoided by just acknowledging that a mistake may have been made, and asking for patches if anybody cared enough about it.
I'm not sure it's a mistake, but it may not be the best way to do what the "alias check" does. That is, check for "unsafe" methods that may use "assert" in methods that start with assert or assret. It's a name convention check only.
The use of "assret" may be because a developer used it in place of assert for a large project to avoid overwriting inherited methods accidentally and asked for it. (that was suggested in this thread at one point.) But I'm not able to confirm that. It does sound reasonable though. The check for it doesn't auto correct anything or alter anything outside of how the mock responds to existing methods. So it's not as bad as it sounds. (But not as good either.)
A possibly better alternative is to have a different way to check if functions and methods use "assert". Then the check by name convention (which is not dependable anyway) isn't needed.
Possibly adding a function, uses_assert(...), to the inspect module would be good. To allow that to work, may need a flag set on function objects if they contain assert even if the module is compiled in optimise mode. (Is it doable? Or maybe there is another way?)
Cheers, Ron _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
