Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
> > the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
> > to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
> > disregarded.
>
> Experien
Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
>> the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
>> to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
>> disregarded.
>
> Experi
On 2007-01-16, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to admit that part of why assert seems wrong to me is
> the meaning of the word implies something you shouldn't be able
> to ignore. While warnings seem like something that can be
> disregarded.
Experienced C coders expect assert to beha
Carl Banks wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>> There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
>> than it is. :-)
>>
>> ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
>> them
>> generate a more verbose traceback.
>
> Personally, I'd rather see it
Ron Adam wrote:
> There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
> than it is. :-)
>
> ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having them
> generate a more verbose traceback.
Personally, I'd rather see it get less assertive, i.e., having
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:01:35 -0600, Ron Adam wrote:
>
>
>> There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more
>> assertive
>> than it is. :-)
>>
>> ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
>> them
>> generate a more v
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:01:35 -0600, Ron Adam wrote:
> There have been times where I would like assert to be a little more assertive
> than it is. :-)
>
> ie.. not being able to turn them off with the -0/-00 switches, and having
> them
> generate a more verbose traceback.
If you want somethi
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
> > assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
>
> I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
Hah!
> Firstly, print statements work even if you pass t
On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:38:42 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
> > On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> >>
> >> > assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much b
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:38:42 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>>
>> > assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
>>
>> I dispute that assertion (pun in
Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>>
>>> assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
>> I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
>
> Hah!
>
>> Firstly, print s
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> assert foo(0x10) == 0 # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
Firstly, print statements work even if you pass the -O (optimize) flag
to Python. Your asserts don't.
Secondly, a bare
12 matches
Mail list logo
