James Knight writes:
> I still don't see why people think the python interpreter should be
> automatically providing __context__. To me it seems like it'll just
> clutter things up for no good reason. If you really want the other
> exception, you can access it via the local variable in the frame
>
On Sat, 21 May 2005, James Y Knight wrote:
> On May 20, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > This only helps if you can get to a debugger. What if you're
> > reading your web server's error log?
>
> Then you're in trouble anyways because you need the contents of some
> local to figure out w
On May 20, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This only helps if you can get to a debugger. What if you're
> reading your web server's error log?
Then you're in trouble anyways because you need the contents of some
local to figure out what's going on, also.
James
_
On May 20, 2005, at 4:31 AM, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__?
>>
>
> Well, it depends whose needs we're trying to meet.
>
> If we want to satisfy those who have been asking for chaining
> of unexpected secondary exceptions, then w
[Guido van Rossum]
> > Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__?
[Ka-Ping Yee]
> Well, it depends whose needs we're trying to meet.
>
> If we want to satisfy those who have been asking for chaining
> of unexpected secondary exceptions, then we have to provide that
> on some attribute.
>
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__?
Well, it depends whose needs we're trying to meet.
If we want to satisfy those who have been asking for chaining
of unexpected secondary exceptions, then we have to provide that
on some attribute.
If we also want to prov
