On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Mark Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was the most consistent way to deal with the parameterized dtype in > the > > repr, making it more future-proof at the same time. It was producing > reprs > > like "array(['2011-01-01'], dtype=datetime64[D])", which is clearly > wrong, > > and putting quotes around it makes it work in general for all possible > > dtypes, present and future. > > I don't know about you, but I find maintaining doctests across > versions changes rather tricky. For our projects, doctests are > important as part of the automated tests. At the moment this means > that many doctests will break between 1.5.1 and 2.0. What do you > think the best way round this problem? > I'm not sure what the best approach is. I think the primary use of doctests should be to validate that the documentation matches the implementation, and anything confirming aspects of a software system should be regular tests. In NumPy, there are platform-dependent differences in 32 vs 64 bit and big vs little endian, so the part of the system that changed already couldn't be relied on consistently. I prefer systems where the code output in the documentation is generated as part of the documentation build process instead of being included in the documentation source files. Cheers, Mark > > See you, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
