> I was with you right up to the last six words. > > Whether it's worth changing assertNotEqual to be something other than an > alias of failIfEqual is an interesting question. Currently all the > assert* and fail* variants are aliases of each other, which is easy to > learn. This would introduce a broken symmetry, where assertNotEqual tests > something different from failIfEqual, and would mean users have to learn > which assert* methods are aliases of fail* methods, and which are not. > I'm not sure that's a good idea. > > After all, the documentation is clear on what it does: > > | assertNotEqual = failIfEqual(self, first, second, msg=None) > | Fail if the two objects are equal as determined by the '==' > | operator. > | > > > (Taken from help(unittest).) > > > > -- > Steven > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
My preference would be that failIfEqual checks both != and ==. This is practical, and would benefit almost all use cases. If "!=" isn't "not ==" (IEEE NaNs I hear is the only known use case) then those could simply not use this method. It would not surprise me if changing this would bring to light many existing bugs. -- Zachary Burns (407)590-4814 Aim - Zac256FL Production Engineer (Digital Overlord) Zindagi Games -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
