Homonyms are words spelled the same way with different meanings, like bat
(flying mammal) and bat (club used to hit a baseball) (btw, club (a blunt
instrument) and club (a closed association of people))...
In 22 years of programming Python, I always understood the "pass" keyword
as "to forgo an op
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:48 PM Emily Bowman
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 6:49 AM Jean Abou Samra
> wrote:
>
>> where `impossible` raises AssertionError.
>>
>
> Reserving a common English word as a new keyword (whether fail or
> impossible) is the mother of all breaking changes. The syntact
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 6:49 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> where `impossible` raises AssertionError.
>
Reserving a common English word as a new keyword (whether fail or
impossible) is the mother of all breaking changes. The syntactic sugar it
provides is not only tiny, it's pretty much negative, s
Hello,
In the context of pattern matching, not accepting a match
subject that does not match any of the case clauses is
probably going to be frequent if not the most frequent.
Thus, when PEP 634, 635, 636 are -- hopefully -- accepted,
and experience with the feature is gained, this idea might
be
`raise NotImplementedError`
https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#NotImplementedError I
think would be the canonical solution.
E
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 20:34, Victor Stinner wrote:
> If you use the unittest module, I suggest you to use self.fail() instead:
> it is standard. Moreover
If you use the unittest module, I suggest you to use self.fail() instead:
it is standard. Moreover, you can specify a message.
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/unittest.html#unittest.TestCase.fail
Victor
Le ven. 23 oct. 2020 à 21:36, Umair Ashraf a écrit :
> Hello
>
> Can I suggest a feature
On 10/23/20 4:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:06:36PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
I think having a *fail* keyword for unit testing
would be great.
Luckily, we already have it:
assert False
I take it you don't run your unit tests under -O :-)
`raise Exception`
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:06:36PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
> >I think having a *fail* keyword for unit testing
> >would be great.
>
> Luckily, we already have it:
>
> assert False
I take it you don't run your unit tests under -O :-)
`raise Exception` works fine for me.
--
Steve
On 24/10/20 7:52 am, Umair Ashraf wrote:
class MyTest(unittest.TestCase):
def test_this_and_that(self):
"""
Given inputs
When action is done
Then it should pass
"""
fail
def fail():
raise Exception("It didn't work!")
Not every one-line function
On 10/23/20 11:52 AM, Umair Ashraf wrote:
Hello
Howdy!
Can I suggest a feature to discuss and hopefully develop and send a PR.
You can, but the place to do it is Python Ideas:
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
python-id...@python.org
I think having
I do not understand how a simple raise is worse than this. A simple variable
holding some standard error (like test not implemented error) should be no
different. (like fail = NotImplementedError("Test has not been implemented yet")
I feel like this is a useless syntactic sugar but if you give s
11 matches
Mail list logo
