Message137077
| Author |
eric.araujo |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, ysj.ray |
| Date |
2011年05月27日.16:23:00 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.4297914e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1306513381.59.0.0318152006474.issue8887@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Since *parts* is a list, the above can be replaced with simply "if parts:"
Heh, I always use implied truth values and one disagreed with Tarek about this, but here if felt more natural to spell out my mind with an explicit > 0 comparison :)
> Also, it seems to me that the new code may produce an AttributeError
> when given invalid name
I didn’t see that, I forgot to test invalid names, since test_pydoc already has some checks. I’ll add tests and see if I can reproduce what you’re hinting at (it would be helpful if you could give examples of invalid names: full dotted names, method names, class names?).
> I wouder if it would be possible to reuse the try/except logic ing
> the "if module" clause
Sure, as long as the tests pass I have no preference about the implementation. BTW, what’s your opinion on the test I added? I use render_doc to test name resolving, do you think I should also test the command-line pydoc in a subprocess or is it okay to have white-box knowledge here? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年05月27日 16:23:01 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, belopolsky, ezio.melotti, ysj.ray |
| 2011年05月27日 16:23:01 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1306513381.59.0.0318152006474.issue8887@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年05月27日 16:23:01 | eric.araujo | link | issue8887 messages |
| 2011年05月27日 16:23:00 | eric.araujo | create |
|