Toplevel "test()" functions in standard library

[Moshe Zadka]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Rob W. W. Hooft wrote:

> >>>>> "MZ" == Moshe Zadka <moshez at math.huji.ac.il> writes:
> 
>  >> Going one step further: Should all of these "test()" and "_test()"
>  >> routines be in the code library at all, even now that we have a
>  >> complete test engine?
> 
>  MZ> Yes! This is a preliminary test, which should be available to
>  MZ> every user of the library. If you're optimizing the few KB it
>  MZ> takes, then you're not using Python correctly.
> 
> If that is the common opinion or the opinion of our Ruler

When ESR submitted such a patch, Guido ruled it out, and /F seems to agree
with me.

> I will
> subtract my proposal, and submit a bug report that those test()
> routines are undocumented.

Why? It's quite alright that there will be undocumented routines in
modules. This is a module implementation issue.
(If you want to test that the module is working, you can look inside)

> As a reply to your last sentence I can add that my own programs can
> use up to 200MB of memory during normal use, or much more if you
> really stress them.

Then the few KB of extra compiled code shouldn't matter to you...
--
Moshe Zadka <moshez at math.huji.ac.il>
There is no GOD but Python, and HTTP is its prophet.
http://advogato.org/person/moshez