Message123516
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Rodrigue.Alcazar, ezio.melotti, michael.foord, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2010-12-07.02:51:30 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00022659995 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1291690293.1.0.205461139821.issue9517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
OK, fine on the convention, but I'd still like a more memorable name for assert_python_failure. I've been working on this issue off and on today, and I've had to look up that name at least four times. I can remember assert_python_ok, but I can't remember whether its inverse is assert_python_fails, assert_python_bad, or what. For some reason I haven't guessed 'failure' even once so far :) (I know it's not assert_python_not_ok because I remember it isn't parallel...) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-12-07 02:51:33 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, ncoghlan, pitrou, ezio.melotti, michael.foord, Rodrigue.Alcazar |
| 2010-12-07 02:51:33 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1291690293.1.0.205461139821.issue9517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-12-07 02:51:30 | r.david.murray | link | issue9517 messages |
| 2010-12-07 02:51:30 | r.david.murray | create | |