Message157044
| Author | michael.foord |
|---|---|
| Recipients | anacrolix, eric.araujo, michael.foord, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2012-03-29.13:30:53 |
| 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 |
| 2012-03-29 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | recipients: + michael.foord, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, anacrolix |
| 2012-03-29 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | messageid: <1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-03-29 13:30:53 | michael.foord | link | issue14408 messages |
| 2012-03-29 13:30:53 | michael.foord | create | |