> "If it's not important enough to require tests it's not important > enough to be in Python." -- Ethan Furman
Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> writes: > Yes, the smiley was acknowledgement that testing is hard, will never > be perfect, and we only have so much time -- but thorough tests should > still be the goal. I agree with the statement in full. I wonder what Terry disagrees with in that statement. It's not saying that *all code* in Python must have tests, no matter how difficult that is. Difficulty is not addressed in the statement. It's saying that if code is so *unimportant* that it doesn't require tests, then that code is below the threshold of importance for keeping in Python. That is a statement that appears clearly right. I'd be surprised at any defensible counter-example: code that is both “not important enough to require tests”, *and* important enough to be in Python. Perhaps disagreement would hinge on differing ideas of “important” and “require” in the context of core Python. If so, those both seem like judgements the Python core developers get to make; and so, I still agree with the statement in full. -- \ “A hundred times every day I remind myself that […] I must | `\ exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have | _o__) received and am still receiving” —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list