Author michael.foord
Recipients Arfrever, Julian, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, flox, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv, terry.reedy
Date 2013-03-04.16:12:59
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1362413579.72.0.134226745849.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
That's a use case that I'm not very *interested* in supporting personally - however it may well be a use case that was "designed in" and that others have a need for (I didn't implement expectedFailure support). 

I think expectedFailure should be used sparingly and for a utility function to be *able* to turn a failure into a expectedFailure sounds actively dangerous.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-03-04 16:12:59michael.foordsetrecipients: + michael.foord, terry.reedy, spiv, exarkun, ncoghlan, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, hpk, flox, fperez, chris.jerdonek, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle
2013-03-04 16:12:59michael.foordsetmessageid: <1362413579.72.0.134226745849.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-03-04 16:12:59michael.foordlinkissue16997 messages
2013-03-04 16:12:59michael.foordcreate