[Python-Dev] peps: Update PEP 399 to include comments from python-dev.

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
> 
> However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the 
> PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for 
> exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic differences 
> in comparison to generic Python code.

True. But then we're much better without a formal requirement that
some people will start trying to require because they don't understand
that its metric is pointless.

> I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch 
> the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from 
> integration, but needs solid reasoning, review and testing in the wild in 
> order to be considered an equivalent alternative implementation.
> But then 
> again, this should actually be required anyway, even for code with an 
> exceedingly high test coverage.

I'm not sure what kind of "testing in the wild" you refer to. If you
mean that it should have e.g. been published on the Cheeseshop, I don't
think that's an useful requirement for an accelerator module.

Regards

Antoine.