Tres Seaver tseaver at palladion.com
Fri Apr 27 17:28:09 EDT 2018

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On 04/27/2018 05:11 PM, Tim Peters wrote:

> In this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed 
> accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
> 
> x = f() or g()
> 
> You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP 
> unless you want to.  It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh!  a 
> binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new 
> potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool!  that's fatal" ;-)
FWIW, Ned Batchelder's 'coverage.py' does a good job with branch coverage.
I haven't seen anything in this discussion which indicates that binding
expressions will change that at all.


Tres.
-- 
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] (name := expression) doesn't fit the narrative of PEP 20
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list