[TIP] A rare philosophical thought
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Sun Aug 3 15:15:28 PDT 2008
C. Titus Brown wrote:
> -> > ...and I have no objection to unittest remaining in the stdlib. I don't
> -> > know that anyone does.
> -> You called it evil, with caps and exclamation marks. I took it as a
> -> mandate to kill. Clearly you believe there's a possibility for
> -> redemption.
> There's simply no way such a backwards incompatibility would be
> introduced into Python. Were it a perfect world, I think something
> better than unittest would magically replace unittest and everyone's
> code would be automatically rewritten to use it, but... that's not
> going to happen :)
> I think having unittest as the only "standard" module in the library is
> bad, because it is difficult to understand and use if you are new to the
> concept of testing, AND because there are alternatives that are
> demonstrably viable.
It's not the only one, there is also doctest and I think the chances of
getting a third testing library in the standard library are pretty slim.
More information about the testing-in-python