On 3/1/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > You start with a traceback object pointing to the current frame
> > object (traceback objects are distinct from frame objects,
>
> Just out of curiosity, is it really necessary to have
> a distinct traceback object? Coul
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> You start with a traceback object pointing to the current frame
> object (traceback objects are distinct from frame objects,
Just out of curiosity, is it really necessary to have
a distinct traceback object? Couldn't the traceback
just be made of dead frame objects linked
[Summary: James Knight's idea can't work unless we copy the entire
stack, which is bad. Disregard my previous posts in this thread of a
few minutes ago. See the end of this post why.]
On 3/1/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Y Knight wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that a stack trace s
On 2/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:10:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >I am beginning to think that there are serious problems with attaching
> >the traceback to the exception; I really don't like the answer that
> >pre-cre
On 2/28/07, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I am beginning to think that there are serious problems with attaching
> > the traceback to the exception; I really don't like the answer that
> > pre-creating an exception is unpythonic
On 2/28/07, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am gradually making progress with my binary floating-point software,
> but have had to rewrite several times as I have forgotten most of the
> details of how to do it! After 30 years, I can't say I am surprised.
>
> But I need to clean up wo
On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> James Y Knight wrote:
>> The traceback won't necessarily be *useful*,
>
> Almost completely use*less*, I would have thought.
> The traceback is mostly used to find out where
> something went wrong, not where it went right (i.e.
> successful creation
Someone please check this in!
On 3/1/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack Diederich wrote:
> > __ Python/compile.c: You will need to create or modify the
> >compiler_* functions for your productions.
>
> Python/symtable.c will likely also need attention at this point (it
Jack Diederich wrote:
> __ Python/compile.c: You will need to create or modify the
>compiler_* functions for your productions.
Python/symtable.c will likely also need attention at this point (it
handles the symbol collection pass that occurs before the actual
compilation pass)
Cheer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps the use-cases for attaching the traceback object
> to the exception would be better satisfied by simply having
> sys.exc_info() return an object with methods like Failure?
> I can't think of a good name for the new object type,
Maybe we could call it a 'catch'
Michael Foord wrote:
> With the
> proposed changes, modules that do this would *continue* to work, surely
> ?
Probably, but it might mean they were no longer thread
safe. An exception caught and raised in one thread would
be vulnerable to having its traceback clobbered by
another thread raising
James Y Knight wrote:
> It seems to me that a stack trace should always be attached to an
> exception object at creation time
Um. Yes. Well, that's certainly an innovative solution...
> The traceback won't necessarily be *useful*,
Almost completely use*less*, I would have thought.
The traceba
12 matches
Mail list logo
