On 17/07/2012 15:23, Lipska the Kat wrote:
On 17/07/12 14:52, Roy Smith wrote:
In article<-8sdnvrxgqie25jnnz2dnuvz7qkdn...@bt.com>,
Lipska the Kat<lip...@lipskathekat.com> wrote:
I'm not used to using variables without declaring their type
If you truly wanted to recreate this type-bondage style of programming
in Python, it's easy enough to do.
snip
Well 'type-bondage' is a strange way of thinking about compile time type
checking and making code easier to read (and therefor debug) but
I'm not about to get into some religious war about declaring a variables
type. I'll just say that I prefer to devote testing efforts to the real
danger area which in my experience is 'user' input.
Why waste time testing, I thought that the compiler looked after
everything? :) But seriously you might want to look at the unittest
module in the standard library. There's also a separate mailing list
for Python testing and I'm sure there's a wiki that compares the
available tesing tools. Google and ye shall find!!!
Clients look dimly on runtime errors however they occur and if I can
leave it to the compiler to check as much as possible then I'll take that.
I do understand however that compiling an intepreted language doesn't
really make sense however i'm sure there are interpreted languages that
allow pre-execution type checking ... aren't there ? Oh yes, there's one
called Java :-)
There are tools available to help here such as pylint, pychecker and
pyflakes. For other modules check out pypi at http://pypi.python.org/pypi
Still, I'm sure you're only kidding around with me :-)
Kidding around on a Python mailing list, never, how dare you Sir, simply
wouldn't be cricket :-)
Lipska
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
