Skip Montanaro wrote: > ISTR that when Tim Peters first implemented first, the typical way you > were expected to get tests into a doc string was to copy from an > interactive session, which would not have this problem.
I believe that is still documented as the way to generate doctests. > Also, to Steven's comment about fussiness, it isn't so much that it's > fussy. It's more that it's dumb. I just does a simple string comparison of > the expected and actual outputs. It would be impossible for doctest to > know whether the expected output was something like repr or str output, > and thus safe to exchange single for double (don't forget to escape other > embedded quotes!), or was some sort of user-generated string, perhaps > intended to be > text in another programming language which has different quoting rules > than Python. Therefore, fussy (or dumb) is exactly what you want. I didn't mean to give the impression that doctest was wrong to be fussy, or dumb if you prefer. I think it's exactly the right behaviour. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
