Message157044
| Author |
michael.foord |
| Recipients |
anacrolix, eric.araujo, michael.foord, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2012年03月29日.13:30:53 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Besides which, the mixin pattern won't *stop* working if we provide this extra functionality - it would just be an alternative for those (like myself) who think it impedes code readability. :-)
At this point we're off topic for the *specific issue*, and I'm fine with our own standard library tests moving to use mixins to support standard unittest invocation. I would suggest the base test cases include Mixin in their name to make it clear how they should be used. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年03月29日 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | recipients:
+ michael.foord, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, anacrolix |
| 2012年03月29日 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | messageid: <1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年03月29日 13:30:53 | michael.foord | link | issue14408 messages |
| 2012年03月29日 13:30:53 | michael.foord | create |
|