Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm personally fine with that approach, but some of the new items in there
for 2.6 could probably use a bit of cleaning
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm personally fine with that approach, but some of the new items in there
>> for 2.6 could probably use a bit of cleaning up to improve the AP
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> But I think we should think about this more. I don't think anyone
>> expects the code inside any particular test_foo.py to have a stable
>> public interface. But quite a bit of the test support
Guido van Rossum wrote:
But I think we should think about this more. I don't think anyone
expects the code inside any particular test_foo.py to have a stable
public interface. But quite a bit of the test support infrastructure
is reused by third party test frameworks. I think we should
acknowledg
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a little worried about making stuff undocumented that every core
>>> developer needs to use -- everyo
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm a little worried about making stuff undocumented that every core
developer needs to use -- everyone writing tests needs to continue to
use test_support (now test.support?). I imagine people
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Simon Cross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [1] Although personally I would bet against it until proven --
> especially given a sensible definition of "core developer" to mean, in
> this case, anyone with the right to commit tests to the repository.
> [2] Since many
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right, but I would think all core developers know about test.support
> and are capable of reading the code and docstring.
Docstrings don't help for things other than Modules, Classes and
Functions. So, for example, are co
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a little worried about making stuff undocumented that every core
> developer needs to use -- everyone writing tests needs to continue to
> use test_support (now test.support?). I imagine people writing unit
> test su
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a little worried about making stuff undocumented that every core
> developer needs to use -- everyone writing tests needs to continue to
> use test_support
Right, but I would think all core developers know about tes
I'm a little worried about making stuff undocumented that every core
developer needs to use -- everyone writing tests needs to continue to
use test_support (now test.support?). I imagine people writing unit
test suites for 3rd party libraries might want to use its services
too.
In general I'm not
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want, but Benjamin plans to undocument this for users along
> with all other test.support stuff (which I agree with). Most of the
> APIs in test.support were just quickly written and have not
> necessarily been thoug
12 matches
Mail list logo
