[Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes

Mon Jul 14 12:05:22 CEST 2008

Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > The problem is, that makes it quite inconsistent with other "not"
> > uses (such as "assert_not_equal", "assert_not_in", etc.) I would
> > really prefer that all these "not" uses be gramatically consistent
> > for predictability. Is this a case where "assert_is_not" should
> > exist alongside "assert_not_is"?
>> If we can flip the word order in the language syntax, we can sure as
> heck flip it in a method name :)

To be clear, I take it you're in favour of the following names (with
no aliases):
 assert_equal assert_not_equal
 assert_is assert_is_not
 assert_in assert_not_in
 assert_almost_equal assert_not_almost_equal
and so on; i.e. that 'assert_is_not' breaks the obvious pattern set by
the others, in the interest of matching Python's 'is not' grammar.
-- 
 \ “Instead of having ‘answers’ on a math test, they should just |
 `\ call them ‘impressions’, and if you got a different |
_o__) ‘impression’, so what, can't we all be brothers?” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney