On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Devin,
You need to start writing real code rather than continue to tell us that the problems are minor and easily fixable, and the solutions are uncontroversial. To those who have tried and thought about it, the problems are *not* easy to solve , except for some superficial edge cases that you and other critics of doctest keep focusing on.
I already did write real code. In the context of this discussion, I implemented a +LITERAL_EVAL flag.
Was there something else I was supposed to write, other than the solution I advocated? ;)
https://bitbucket.org/devin.jeanpierre/doctest2/src/e084a682ccbc/doctest2/co...
It's not a solution. It's a hack that only works in the simplest cases -- it requires the output to look like a Python expression (that can be evaluated in a limited environment). What if the output were something like <Future for 'foo' returning {1: 'blah', 2: 'booh'}> ??? There's a dict in there but the whole thing is not parseable.
And please don't propose that we change the behavior of dict or other data types itself, or add new APIs to objects just for the purpose of "fixing" doctest's issues.
I would never dream of it. That's pretty obscene.
Good. I wasn't sure what you meant when you used the phrase "fix dict" -- I presume that was shorthand for "fix the problem that doctest has with dict". -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)