On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:09 AM Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> 18.02.20 20:13, Guido van Rossum пише:
> > I am a little confused how you get from "there are extra frames in the
> > traceback" to "modify exec() to run code in another frame".
>
> Sorry for skipping several steps. I'll try to expand
18.02.20 20:13, Guido van Rossum пише:
I am a little confused how you get from "there are extra frames in the
traceback" to "modify exec() to run code in another frame".
Sorry for skipping several steps. I'll try to expand them here. PEP 558
does not have relation to this, as frame is not the
I am a little confused how you get from "there are extra frames in the
traceback" to "modify exec() to run code in another frame".
Also, with PEP 558 (Defined semantics for locals(), by Nick Coghlan) we
might be able to just pass the frame's globals and locals to exec() or
eval() without further
18.02.20 11:28, M.-A. Lemburg пише:
This sounds like a nice idea, but it may make sense to limit the
frame to one already on the stack. Otherwise, the code you're
executing may never return to your current stack...
I do not think there will be such problem. exec() will temporary replace
the
On 18.02.2020 08:33, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> The idea is inspired by the following StackOverflow question:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40945752/inspect-who-imported-me and
> the corresponding BPO issue: https://bugs.python.org/issue39643.
>
> In the older Python versions the f_back
