On 29 December 2016 at 08:13, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2016 12:44, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
> My quick on-vacation response is that attaching more objects to exceptions
> is typically viewed as dangerous as it can lead to those objects being kept
> alive longer than expected (see the d
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2016 12:44, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
>
> My quick on-vacation response is that attaching more objects to exceptions
> is typically viewed as dangerous as it can lead to those objects being kept
> alive longer than expected (see th
On Dec 28, 2016 12:44, "Brett Cannon" wrote:
My quick on-vacation response is that attaching more objects to exceptions
is typically viewed as dangerous as it can lead to those objects being kept
alive longer than expected (see the discussions about richer error messages
to see that worry come ou
On 2016-12-28 21:01, Emanuel Landeholm wrote:
I think an argument could be made for including the str() of parameters
of primitive types and with small values (for some value of "primitive"
and "small", can of worms here...). I'm thinking numbers and short
strings. Maybe a flag to control this be
I think an argument could be made for including the str() of parameters of
primitive types and with small values (for some value of "primitive" and
"small", can of worms here...). I'm thinking numbers and short strings.
Maybe a flag to control this behaviour? My gut feeling is that this would
be a
My quick on-vacation response is that attaching more objects to exceptions
is typically viewed as dangerous as it can lead to those objects being kept
alive longer than expected (see the discussions about richer error messages
to see that worry come out for something as simple as attaching the type
Consider the following similar C and Python code and their
tracebacks:
C
---
int divide(int x, int y, char* some_string) {
return x / y;
}
int main(...) {
divide(2, 0, "Hello World");
}
---
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0