On 23.07.12 19:38, Jesus Cea wrote:
The problem is that if we do ">=", then an unpatched python
interpreter could pass the test too. So we are not actually testing
the feature.
If the repeat counters are going to be optimized, the obvious step
would be to upgrade the test to do something like "BHHIL" instead of
"123B". I would wait until this feature is implemented to update the test.
What do you think?.
I think any __sizeof__ tests are meaningless, because any result is
implementation detail. For other implementations we get other values and
other relations. Any of our a priori assumptions could be incorrect.
Even my first assert may fail, if implementation uses a continuous array
with overallocation.
I am now prepared a set of 14 __sizeof__ patches (should it be one issue
or 14 individual issues in bugtracker?), and I feel a great desire not
to write tests at all.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
