Data-driven testing

Peter Hansen peter at
Fri Apr 25 01:34:13 CEST 2003

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> > throwaway than the ones I "know" are not.  If I'm wrong... no big deal:
> > I rewrite as a real script with proper tests.  Since the script was
> > only twenty or thirty lines of code (any more and it could not possibly
> > be throwaway, right?) it isn't really a big deal.
> Wrong.  "Throwaway" means "I [think I] am going to need to run this
> only once".  Whether it's 30 or 60 lines has nothing to do with it.

This is getting us nowhere.  

I'm asserting that I have actually seen "throwaway" scripts, even predicted 
their imminent development, and subsequently have actually thrown them away.
I'm not asserting I do this with 100% accuracy.  I'm asserting that
I very infrequently do decide that a script will be throwaway, and
that in those rare cases I often turn out to be right, and often 
enough that it seems worth continuing to make such predictions in
order to save myself some time.  These I believe are facts about *me*.

You're asserting that you have never accurately predicted this, or
at least not accurately enough to make prediction worthwhile, or 
at least that even when you predict correctly it you discount the 
prediction and proceed on the assumption that you are wrong.  (Or 
something like that... I'm unsure it's actually relevant to my point.)

Neither of us can assert anything about the other's real situation,
nor presumably about Aahz' (though I admit I did... maybe I was wrong).

I can't see any point in continuing the discussion, can you?


More information about the Python-list mailing list