Re: status of Programming by Contract (PEP 316)?

Russ wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:

Frankly I am getting a little tired of they way you are unable to even
recognize that your readers may well have a sensible appreciation of the
difficulties about which you write. As has been pointed out already,
many readers here are extremely experienced programmers.

You said in an earlier post "that's not an insult", but that isn't
really up to you to decide. If it gives offense then it probably is,
whether it was intended to do so or not. You don't seem to appreciate
the insulting nature of your tone, and calling people bozos is not
likely to endear you to most c.l.py readers since it comes off as arrogant.

You quoted what I wrote in reply to a personal attack against me, but
you conveniently
neglected to quote the original insult that I was replying to. OK,
I'll concede that I shouldn't
have replied to a personal insult with another insult, but why am I
the only one at fault here
rather than the guy who started it?

You aren't, and if I wasn't being even-handed I apologize.

Frankly, Mr. Holden, I'm getting a bit tired of the clannish behavior
here, where
"outsiders" like me are held to a higher standard than your "insider"
friends. I don't know
who you are, nor do I care what you and your little group think about
me.

Well that's a healthy attitude, but I am concerned that the Python community should be as welcoming as possible, so I don't like the fact that you feel you are being treated differently from anyone else.

As for DbC or what I call "self-testing code," I have come to the
(tentative) realization that
it is easy to implement in current Python -- without resorting to the
"decorators" hack.
OK, maybe this should have been obvious to me from the
start, but here goes:

All you really need to test the pre-conditions of a function
is a call at the top of the function to another function that checks
the inputs. To test the
post-conditions, you just need a call at the bottom of the function,
just before the return,
that checks the return values. Those functions can also check the
invariants. Then you
define a global variable to switch all the self-test functions on or
off at once.

It does constrain functions to return only from the bottom of their code, though, which not all Python functions currently do. Though there's nothing to stop you putting the calls before every return.

An advantage of this approach is that all the self tests can be put at
the bottom of the file
(or perhaps in another file) to reduce "clutter" in the primary code.

I'd still prefer PEP 316, but this seems like a reasonable
alternative.

One suggestion I have for PEP 316 is to provide a way to place the
self-test
checks in a separate file to reduce clutter.

That would be a sensible suggestion. It would also be possible to guard the lengthier tests with "if debug" to allow them to be omitted (presumably along with their imports with a little further effort in code organization) in (optimized) production mode where timings were critical.

This could allow the benefits of DbC and unit testing at the same time.

Putting the verification code into external functions does assume that global variables aren't used in the pre- and post-conditions, but I presume that's a part of the regime anyway.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Safe Riddles
    ... >> scroll to the bottom of the quoted material because his newsreader ... > I agree that it is more convenient for the original poster. ... >> of potential readers, ... > then the potential readers. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Safe Riddles
    ... >> scroll to the bottom of the quoted material because his newsreader ... > I agree that it is more convenient for the original poster. ... >> of potential readers, ... > then the potential readers. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Really basic newbie question about hashes
    ... > %TAGS is global. ... > Readers would benefit by your discussing why you, personally, prefer ... I did not insult you. ... it is you displaying the lack. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: status of Programming by Contract (PEP 316)?
    ... many readers here are extremely experienced programmers. ... neglected to quote the original insult that I was replying to. ... define a global variable to switch all the self-test functions on or ... One suggestion I have for PEP 316 is to provide a way to place the ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Some pics from the Woodside boink
    ... your personal habit. ... You are simply lying to readers, ... Yours is a planned and intended personal insult. ... Adding insult to your own dignity, you have taken to lying just ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading