[TIP] A rare philosophical thought

Michael Foord 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.
> --t
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 mailing list