[Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20 (original) (raw)
Tres Seaver tseaver at palladion.com
Fri Apr 27 17:28:09 EDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 04/27/2018 05:11 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
In this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
x = f() or g() You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal" ;-) FWIW, Ned Batchelder's 'coverage.py' does a good job with branch coverage. I haven't seen anything in this discussion which indicates that binding expressions will change that at all.
Tres.
=================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]