In a message of Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:14:34 -0700, Ned Batchelder writes: >The true TDD acolytes advocate a very idiosyncratic workflow, it's true. >I don't do this, but I also don't consider myself a TDD person. I value >tests a great deal, and put a lot of effort into them, but I don't write >trivial functions to get my tests to pass and then go back to change them.
Grrr. I am a true TDD acolyte. And I don't do that either. >But people whose opinion I value do advocate that, and it's possible that >in time I will understand their methods and use them myself. Stranger >things have happened... > >--Ned. Seriously? Oh you humble man. I have convinced a huge number of people who used to have that sort of dogma that the reason they advocated such baby steps is that they didn't have a good coverage tool. ***grin*** TDD is supposed to make you brave, not cowards, and it's Ned's most excellent tool http://nedbatchelder.com/code/coverage/ that I recommend to TDD dogmatic cowards. Even if you don't want to use TTD, you will enjoy Ned's tool. It's GREAT. Thank you, Ned. Laura -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
