Re: "assert" annoyance

On Jun 22, 5:05 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > Unit tests are not a magic wand that discover every problem that a > program could possibly have. +1 QOTW Michele Simionato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: "assert" annoyance

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin wrote: > > What I really want is for any assertion failure, anywhere in the > program, to trap to the debugger WITHOUT blowing out of the scope > where the failure happened, so I can examine the local frame. That > just seems

Re: "assert" annoyance

Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/65287 Thanks! This looks very useful. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: "assert" annoyance

Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So I have some assert statements in my code to verify the absence of > > some "impossible" conditions. They were useful in debugging and of > > course I left them in place for "real" runs of the program. Umpteen > > hours into a run, an assertion failed,

Re: "assert" annoyance

Paul Rubin writes: > So I have some assert statements in my code to verify the absence of > some "impossible" conditions. They were useful in debugging and of > course I left them in place for "real" runs of the program. Umpteen > hours into a run, an assertion failed,

Re: "assert" annoyance

On 6/22/07, Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2:45 am, "Evan Klitzke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/21/07, Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > > > > What I really want is for any assertion failure, anywhere

Re: "assert" annoyance

Paul Rubin schrieb: > So I have some assert statements in my code to verify the absence of > some "impossible" conditions. They were useful in debugging and of > course I left them in place for "real" runs of the program. Umpteen > hours into a run, an assertion failed, and of course since failur

Re: "assert" annoyance

On Jun 22, 2:45 am, "Evan Klitzke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/21/07, Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 1:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > > > What I really want is for any assertion failure, anywhere in the > > > program, to trap to the debugger WITHOUT b

Re: "assert" annoyance

On 6/21/07, Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 1:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > > What I really want is for any assertion failure, anywhere in the > > program, to trap to the debugger WITHOUT blowing out of the scope > > where the failure happened, so I can examine

Re: "assert" annoyance

On Jun 22, 1:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > What I really want is for any assertion failure, anywhere in the > program, to trap to the debugger WITHOUT blowing out of the scope > where the failure happened, so I can examine the local frame. That > just seems natural, but I d

"assert" annoyance

So I have some assert statements in my code to verify the absence of some "impossible" conditions. They were useful in debugging and of course I left them in place for "real" runs of the program. Umpteen hours into a run, an assertion failed, and of course since failure was "impossible", I didn't