Message157044
Besides which, the mixin pattern won't *stop* working if we provide this extra functionality - it would just be an alternative for those (like myself) who think it impedes code readability. :-)
At this point we're off topic for the *specific issue*, and I'm fine with our own standard library tests moving to use mixins to support standard unittest invocation. I would suggest the base test cases include Mixin in their name to make it clear how they should be used. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-03-29 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | recipients:
+ michael.foord, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, anacrolix |
2012-03-29 13:30:54 | michael.foord | set | messageid: <1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-03-29 13:30:53 | michael.foord | link | issue14408 messages |
2012-03-29 13:30:53 | michael.foord | create | |
|