[Python-Dev] PEP: Consolidating names and classes in the `unittest` module (updated 2008-07-15)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ben Finney writes:

 > Removal of ``assert*`` names
 > ----------------------------
 > 
 > There is no overwhelming consensus on whether to remove the
 > ``assert*`` names or the ``fail*`` names;

7 to 1 is overwhelming in my book.  See
Message-ID: <loom.20080714T230912-310 at post.gmane.org>
From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>

While people's preferences are important, I think there is a very good
case to made that keeping this much continuity in the test suite as
possible is more so.

 > * Explicit is better than implicit: The ``fail*`` names state *what
 >   the function will do* explicitly: fail the test. With the
 >   ``assert*`` names, the action to be taken is only implicit.

EIBTI applies with the most force to "local" names, ie, specific to a
particular function, class, or program.  Here we propose to impose a
community-wide convention.  I think we can document it explicitly and
expect near-instant uptake on the appropriate connotations to "assert"
(especially since that connotation is pretty much universal across
languages with an assert facility, anyway).

 > * Avoid false implication: The test methods do not have any necessary
 >   connection with the built-in ``assert`` statement.

Data point: Use of `Assert' as a test method in the XEmacs test suite
has never caused any confusion with either C-level asserts, or with
the Lisp function `assert'.