On 25 October 2016 at 23:20, Michel Desmoulin <desmoulinmic...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should we make a PEP with all of those ?
No, incrementally improving error messages doesn't require PEP level advocacy - it just requires folks doing the development and review work of updating them without breaking anything, and adjusting the test suite as needed. In a lot of cases what's feasible with an error message (particularly from C code) depends a great deal on what information is readily available at the point the error is being reported, in others it's just that the particular error message hasn't been updated yet to be a bit more user friendly, so it's hard to establish new general principles around error reporting. The question does make wonder if we should consider "Find and improve an error message that annoys you because it omits frequently relevant information" as our new default "I'm interested in contributing, but I don't know what to work on" recommendation? While we don't want folks changing error messages for the sake of changing them, or overwhelming users with frequently irrelevant details, there's still a wide array of error messages that could stand to provide a bit more context regarding what went wrong, and it's the kind of change that can help more folks start to see software errors as "I can solve this!" puzzles rather than "It doesn't work and I don't know where to start in figuring out why not" road blocks. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
