On 8 August 2013 10:16, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2013 1:33 PM, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why on earth would you ever be copying the stack? > > What scope should the stack backtrace be valid for? Once a finally block > runs (potentially calling a function), the stack is modified so the original > stack has been overwritten.
Both you and Bennie seem to be saying, effectively: "The handler probably knows if it needs a filled-in stack trace or not" and you want to be able to communicate that to the raise statement (which should probably be polymorphic on this condition). Sounds reasonable to me. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely may reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to deny you those rights would be illegal without prior contractual agreement. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
