ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Tue Feb 28 12:40:37 CET 2012
Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> writes:
> On Feb 17, 2012 4:12 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at 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
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_ |
More information about the Python-ideas