Michael Foord <fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk> writes:
Adding the following new asserts:
assertIn (member, container, msg=None) assertNotIn (member, container, msg=None) assertIs (first, second, msg=None) assertNotIs (first, second, msg=None) assertRaisesWithMessage (exc_class, message, callable, *args, **keywargs) […]
assertLessThan assertGreaterThan assertLessThanOrEquals assertGreaterThanOrEquals […]
assertListEqual(self, list1, list2, msg=None): assertDictEqual(self, d1, d2, msg=None): assertMultiLineEqual(self, first, second, msg=Non […]
assertSameElements(self, expected_seq, actual_seq, msg=None):
All these are new, so there is no existing expectation of these names from users of the standard library 'unittest' module (i.e. no backward-compatibility concern since these are new methods). If we're planning to deprecate the existing non-PEP-8 names in 2.7 and 3.1, why would we introduce new names that are non-PEP-8? Wouldn't it be better to add these as PEP-8 compatible names in the first instance? -- \ “You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I'll bet he | `\ was glad to get rid of it.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney