[Zope3-dev] mangled names in tests

[Jeremy Hylton]

I've seen an idiom in several different unittests that I don't
understand.  The tests all involve an abstract test class written
against the interface.  The abstract class expects to be mixed in with
a class that defines a method to create an instance of the interface
being tested.

Example:

    class IFoo(Interface): pass

    class TestIFoo: pass

    class TestIdempotentFoo: pass

The TestIFoo class expect that TestIdempotentFoo is going to define
some method to return an object implementing IFoo.  The idiom is see
is to name that method _TestIFoo__new.  This is the mangled form of
__new in TestIFoo.

I propose that we change it to _new() or, in cases where one concrete
test class will mixin several abstract test classes, _testIFoo().  I
think this is much clearer than using a mangled name for something
that isn't a private name at all.

I haven't found a case where _newIFoo() is actually needed, so maybe
that's a YAGNI.

Jeremy