On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jason Swails <jason.swa...@gmail.com> wrote: > My question is, what do you think of the "else: pass" statement? It is a > complete no-op and is syntactically equivalent to the same code with those > lines removed. Up until earlier today, I would look at that and cringe (I > still do, a little). > > What I recently realized, though, that what this construct allows is for the > coverage testing package (which I have recently started employing for my > project... thanks Ned and others!) to detect whether or not both code paths > are covered in the test suite.
If that's the case, it absolutely MUST have some acknowledgement in the code. Maybe a comment, or maybe replace the 'pass' with an 'assert', or (a neat trick I've used in a few places) a statistical counter: if filename is not None: process_file(filename) files_processed += 1 else: nonfiles_not_processed += 1 Your coverage tester should be just as happy with that, and it doesn't look pointless. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list