Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:57:19 -0300, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us>
escribió:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:45:49 -0700, Zac Burns wrote:
My preference would be that failIfEqual checks both != and ==. This is
practical, and would benefit almost all use cases. If "!=" isn't "not
==" (IEEE NaNs I hear is the only known use case)
numpy uses == and != as element-wise operators:
Two issues: 1) Sounds like we should have two more Asserts --
failIfNotEqual, and assertNotNotEqual to handle the dichotomy in
Python; and 2) Does this mean (looking at Mark Dickinson's post) that
2.7 and 3.1 are now broken?
1) assertEqual and assertNotEqual test for == and != respectively. The
failXXX methods are being deprecated. Why do you think we need more
asserts?
Ignorance, of course. :) I didn't know those were there. Hopefully
the OP will also now realize those are there.
2) Not exactly, but there are still inconsistencies (e.g.
assertDictEqual and assertMultiLineEqual use != instead of ==, and some
assertion messages use the wrong terminology)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
