Richard Oudkerk <shibt...@gmail.com> added the comment:
ISTM the simplest approach would be to just set self->args in
BaseException.__new__() (like in Georg's patch) but to ignore the possibility
that the user might later set self.args to something stupid "wrong":
diff -r 51ac5f06dd04 Objects/exceptions.c
--- a/Objects/exceptions.c Tue Jul 24 03:45:39 2012 -0700
+++ b/Objects/exceptions.c Tue Jul 24 22:12:49 2012 +0100
@@ -44,12 +44,17 @@
self->traceback = self->cause = self->context = NULL;
self->suppress_context = 0;
- self->args = PyTuple_New(0);
- if (!self->args) {
- Py_DECREF(self);
- return NULL;
+ if (!args) {
+ args = PyTuple_New(0);
+ if (!args) {
+ Py_DECREF(self);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ } else {
+ Py_INCREF(args);
}
+ self->args = args;
return (PyObject *)self;
}
Certainly it will not work for all cases (like calling a base classes' __init__
with different arguments), but it does cover the *very* common case where
__init__() is defined but does not call the base classes' __init__().
Such a patch is minimally invasive and, as far as I can see, would not break
currently working code.
Would this be acceptable for a bugfix release?
----------
nosy: +sbt
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1692335>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
