(original) (raw)

On 27 Oct 2013 04:16, "Serhiy Storchaka" <storchaka@gmail.com> wrote:
\>
\> 26.10.13 20:32, Nick Coghlan написав(ла):
\>
\>> On 27 October 2013 01:10, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> wrote:
\>>>
\>>> 26.10.13 15:50, Stefan Krah написав(ла):
\>>>
\>>>> nick.coghlan <python-checkins@python.org> wrote:
\>>>>>
\>>>>>
\>>>>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a9bbc2d0c1dc
\>>>>> -HAVE\_DOCSTRINGS = (check\_impl\_detail(cpython=False) or
\>>>>> - sys.platform == 'win32' or
\>>>>> - sysconfig.get\_config\_var('WITH\_DOC\_STRINGS'))
\>>>>> +# Rather than trying to enumerate all the cases where docstrings may be
\>>>>> +# disabled, we just check for that directly
\>>>>> +
\>>>>> +def \_check\_docstrings():
\>>>>> + """Just used to check if docstrings are enabled"""
\>>>>> +
\>>>>> +HAVE\_DOCSTRINGS = (\_check\_docstrings.\_\_doc\_\_ is not None)
\>>>>>
\>>>>> requires\_docstrings = unittest.skipUnless(HAVE\_DOCSTRINGS,
\>>>>
\>>>>
\>>>>
\>>>> I think that does not detect --without-doc-strings (i.e. the C docstrings
\>>>> are
\>>>> empty).
\>>>
\>>>
\>>>
\>>> Indeed. HAVE\_DOCSTRINGS was introduced to skip tests for the C docstrings.
\>>> Python docstrings tests are skipped if sys.flags.optimize >= 2.
\>>
\>>
\>> That's \*extraordinarily\* confusing, especially when Serhiy suggested I
\>> use the flag when testing a pure Python module.
\>
\>
\> I'm sorry for misleading you.

And my apologies for going ahead and assuming I understood what the flag was for rather than seeking clarification.

I'll put together a patch to split it into two flags for the different meanings.

Cheers,
Nick.
\>
\>
\>
\> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\> Python-Dev mailing list
\> Python-Dev@python.org
\> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
\> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com