Hi,<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/12/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Titus Brown</b> <<a href="mailto:titus@caltech.edu">titus@caltech.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
-> py.test and nose might be great, but the only way I'd know about them<br>-> is if I went searching for them, something most people won't do unless<br>-> they hit some serious problem in their day-to-day encounters with
<br>-> unittest.<br><br>This is true. So, perhaps we should propose that either nose or py.test<br>get dropped into Py3K, instead of a new unittest module? Obviously I'd<br>personally like nose, but I'd prefer
py.test+unittest runner over<br>yet another unittest framework.</blockquote><div><br>
Well, for a start, stdlib docs for unittest module could include a reference to py.test/nose. <br>
<br>
Max.<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>