Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
and so on; i.e. that 'assert_is_not' breaks the obvious pattern set by the others, in the interest of matching Python's 'is not' grammar.
Well, I'd have said "in the interest of reading correctly in English", though I have to acknowledge this may not be an issue for many Python users whose first language not is English. "assert_not_is" is just dissonant to my ears.
I'd count this as another (minor) point in favour of making the 'fail*' methods canonical: the names are consistent *and* gramatically sensible: fail_if_equal fail_unless_equal fail_if_is fail_unless_is fail_if_in fail_unless_in fail_if_almost_equal fail_unless_almost_equal -- \ “We are not gonna be great; we are not gonna be amazing; we are | `\ gonna be *amazingly* amazing!” —Zaphod Beeblebrox, _The | _o__) Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy_, Douglas Adams | Ben Finney