ANN: pry unit testing framework

[Aldo Cortesi]

Thus spake Steve Holden (steve at holdenweb.com):

> It probably reflects personal preference, but it's a preference that
> many people will maintain. I understand that PEP 008 was largely
> directed at standard library authors and maintainers, but anything
> that  claims wide utility should have ambitions to be included in the
> standard  library, and hence PEP 008 conformance would be a plus.

Well, that's an entirely different conversation. Inclusion in the
standard library has not always benefitted libraries - in fact, the
standard library contains a number of examples of modules that have
calcified due to the strict demands for interface backwards
compatibility. Many of these could have been excellent if development
and refactoring had continued. The library cleanup for Py3K may fix
some of these problems, but then we're stuck again until, well, Py4K,
and by then we'll all be too busy swanning about in our flying cars and
having holidays on Mars to care. ;)

So, no, I don't think inclusion in the standard library should be a
universal ambition, and it's certainly not one I have for Pry.






Regards,



Aldo



-- 
Aldo Cortesi
M: +61 419 492 863
P: +61 1300 887 007
W: www.nullcube.com