[Python-Dev] PEP: Consolidating names and classes in the unittest module (updated 2008-07-15) (original) (raw)

Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Tue Jul 15 15:48:08 CEST 2008

Andrew Bennetts <andrew-pythondev at puzzling.org> writes:

Ben Finney wrote: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes: > > Message-ID: <loom.20080714T230912-310 at post.gmane.org> > > From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> > > That measured only usage of unittest *within the Python standard > library*. Is that the only body of unittest-using code we need > consider?

Three more data points then: bzr: 13228 assert* vs. 770 fail*. Twisted: 6149 assert* vs. 1666 fail*. paramiko: 431 assert* vs. 4 fail*. The data seems pretty overwhelmingly in favour of keeping assert*.

Noted, thanks.

So far I have "precedent and tradition" and "positive admonition looks better" in support of preferring the 'assert*' names. Are there any others?

I believe I've stated (in the most-recent PEP revision) the strongest reasons in favour of the 'fail*' names.

This all gets summarised in the Rationale section for the PEP.

-- \ “Killing the creator was the traditional method of patent | `\ protection” —Terry Pratchett, Small Gods | o_) | Ben Finney

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list