This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author michael.foord
Recipients anacrolix, eric.araujo, michael.foord, r.david.murray
Date 2012-03-29.13:30:53
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-03-29 13:30:54michael.foordsetrecipients: + michael.foord, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, anacrolix
2012-03-29 13:30:54michael.foordsetmessageid: <1333027854.24.0.635923808852.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-03-29 13:30:53michael.foordlinkissue14408 messages
2012-03-29 13:30:53michael.foordcreate