Ben Finney wrote:
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> writes:
Ben Finney wrote:
The problem is, that makes it quite inconsistent with other "not" uses (such as "assert_not_equal", "assert_not_in", etc.) I would really prefer that all these "not" uses be gramatically consistent for predictability. Is this a case where "assert_is_not" should exist alongside "assert_not_is"? If we can flip the word order in the language syntax, we can sure as heck flip it in a method name :)
To be clear, I take it you're in favour of the following names (with no aliases):
assert_equal assert_not_equal assert_is assert_is_not assert_in assert_not_in assert_almost_equal assert_not_almost_equal
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. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/