On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> Did you consider to just change the >> words so users can ignore it more easily? > > > Yes, that has also been discussed. > > Speaking for myself, it would be only slightly better. > > Speaking for everyone that wants context suppression (using Steven > D'Aprano's words): chained exceptions expose details to the caller that are > irrelevant implementation details. > > It seems to me that generating the amount of information needed to track > down errors is a balancing act between too much and too little; forcing the > print of previous context when switching from exception A to exception B > feels like too much: at the very least it's extra noise; at the worst it > can be confusing to the actual problem. When the library (or custom class) > author is catching A, saying "Yes, expected, now let's raise B instead", A > is no longer necessary. > > Also, the programmer is free to *not* use 'from None', leaving the complete > traceback in place.
Ok, got it. The developer has to explicitly say "raise <something> from None" and that indicates they have really thought about the issue of suppressing too much information and they are okay with it. I dig that. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com