Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com> writes:
On Feb 17, 2012 4:12 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
An interesting third party alternative that has been created recently is behave: http://crate.io/packages/behave/
This style of test is why it's so sad that doctest is ignored and unmaintained.
I don't see why you draw a connection. There doesn't, to me, seem any need to expand the capabilities of ‘doctest’: it does what it says on the tin, and does it well. Other tasks require other tools.
[the ‘behave’ library is] based on testing patterns developed by people who care to promote what they are doing, but I'm of the strong opinion that they are inferior to doctest.
I think the code-examples-in-documentation is a good thing to have and it's what ‘doctest’ excels at. I don't think distorting behaviour-driven specifications, of the kind ‘behave’ is designed to read, to fit the doctest model would be a good thing. Can you present an argument why you think it would? -- \ “Now Maggie, I’ll be watching you too, in case God is busy | `\ creating tornadoes or not existing.” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney