Tim Arnold wrote:
"Ethan Furman" <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.4.1292379995.6505.python-l...@python.org...
kj wrote:
The one thing I don't like about this strategy is that the tracebacks
of exceptions raised during the execution of __pre_spam include one
unwanted stack level (namely, the one corresponding to __pre_spam
itself).
__pre_spam should be completely invisible and unobtrusive
I am unaware of any way to accomplish what you desire. I also think this
is one of those things that's not worth fighting -- how often are you
going to see such a traceback? When somebody makes a coding mistake? I
would say change the name (assuming yours was a real example) to something
more meaningful like _spam_arg_verifier and call it good.
Alternatively, perhaps you could make a more general arg_verifier that
could be used for all such needs, and then your traceback would have:
caller
spam
arg_verifier
and that seems useful to me (it is, in fact, how I have mine set up).
Hope this helps!
~Ethan~
I thought people would advise using a decorator for this one. Wouldn't that
work?
thanks,
--Tim
A decorator was one of the items kj explicity didn't want. Also, while
it would have a shallower traceback for exceptions raised during the
__pre_spam portion, any exceptions raised during spam itself would then
be one level deeper than desired... while that could be masked by
catching and (re-?)raising the exception in the decorator, Steven had a
very good point about why that is a bad idea -- namely, tracebacks
shouldn't lie about where the error is.
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
