[Python-Dev] peps: Update PEP 399 to include comments from python-dev. (original) (raw)

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Wed Apr 13 13:52:25 CEST 2011

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200 Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:

However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic differences in comparison to generic Python code.

True. But then we're much better without a formal requirement that some people will start trying to require because they don't understand that its metric is pointless.

I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from integration, but needs solid reasoning, review and testing in the wild in order to be considered an equivalent alternative implementation. But then again, this should actually be required anyway, even for code with an exceedingly high test coverage.

I'm not sure what kind of "testing in the wild" you refer to. If you mean that it should have e.g. been published on the Cheeseshop, I don't think that's an useful requirement for an accelerator module.

Regards

Antoine.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list