Le 11/10/13 11:00 AM, Markus Unterwaditzer a écrit :
While it is a nice idea, i don't think this feature deserves its own syntax. Besides doctests, another way of achieving this in Python might be:

def sum(l):
# implementation of sum

def test_sum():
assert sum([]) == 0
assert sum([1, 2, 3]) == 6

which IMO is nice enough.
yes, that's what we all already do: tests in test_xxx functions. And the adopted convention
is to have the tests in dedicated tests modules, which defeats the benefit of having
real isolated unit tests just by the function code.

And even if we place the test function just besides the tested function, Python will not
make any distinction : they are both just functions.

Having the ability to distinguish tests and regular code at the language level
has benefits like the ability to ignore tests when you run the app in production etc.


-- Markus

"Tarek Ziadé" <tarek@ziade.org> wrote:

I've read about Pyret on hackernews: http://www.pyret.org/

and found the 'where' statement very compeling. Functions can end with a where that contains small unit

From the documentation example:
fun sum(l):
  cases(List) l:
    | empty => 0
    | link(first, rest) => first + sum(rest)
  sum([]) is 0
  sum([1, 2, 3]) is 6
It's quite similar to the doctests ideas I guess - but not intended to be documentation like them.

I ended up disliking docttests because of this doc+test duality by the way: it often ends up as a
not so good documentation and not so good tests.

Anyways, having a dedicated keyword to append after a function some tests as part of the language
has benefits imho:

- the scope is reduced to the function - so it helps making 'real' isolated unit tests.
- we do have the unittest conventions, but here it make tests a first class citizen in the language.


Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas