I think in trying to illustrate the existing behavior I made things more
confusing than they needed to be. Let me try again.
Consider this code.
>>> import Food
>>> try:
... import meals
... except NameError as e:
... name = str(e).split("'")[1] # <-- fragile code
On 3 July 2017 at 09:59, Ken Kundert wrote:
> I think in trying to illustrate the existing behavior I made things more
> confusing than they needed to be. Let me try again.
>
> Consider this code.
>
> >>> import Food
> >>> try:
> ... import meals
> ... except NameError as e:
>
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Ken Kundert
wrote:
> That is the problem. To write the error handler, I need the misspelled
> name.
> The only way to get it is to extract it from the error message. The need to
> unpack information that was just packed suggests that the packing was done
> too
> e
2017-07-02 14:13 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano :
> That only solves the problem of mysum being modified, not whether the
> arguments are ints. You still need to know whether it is safe to call
> some low-level (fast) integer addition routine, or whether you have to
> go through the (slow) high-level Py
On 3 July 2017 at 20:46, Jeff Walker wrote:
> I think you are fixating too much on Ken's example. I think I understand
> what he
> is saying and I agree with him. It is a problem I struggle with routinely. It
> occurs in
> the following situations:
Possibly. I hadn't reread the original e
On 3 July 2017 at 21:56, Jeff Walker wrote:
> Paul,
> Indeed, nothing gets better until people change the way they do their
> exceptions. Ken's suggested enhancement to BaseException does not
> directly solve the problem, but it removes the roadblocks that discourage
> people from passing the
Paul,
I think you are fixating too much on Ken's example. I think I understand
what he
is saying and I agree with him. It is a problem I struggle with routinely. It
occurs in
the following situations:
1. You are handling an exception that you are not raising. This could be because
Pyth
Paul,
Indeed, nothing gets better until people change the way they do their
exceptions. Ken's suggested enhancement to BaseException does not
directly solve the problem, but it removes the roadblocks that discourage
people from passing the components to the message.
Seems to me that to addres
On 2017-07-03 22:44, Paul Moore wrote:
On 3 July 2017 at 21:56, Jeff Walker wrote:
Paul,
Indeed, nothing gets better until people change the way they do their
exceptions. Ken's suggested enhancement to BaseException does not
directly solve the problem, but it removes the roadblocks that di
Paul Moore wrote:
As noted, I disagree that people are not passing components because
str(e) displays them the way it does. But we're both just guessing at
people's motivations, so there's little point in speculating.
I've no doubt that the current situation encourages people
to be lazy -- I kn
All,
My primary concern is gaining access to the components that make up the
messages. I am not hung up on the implementation. I just proposed the minimum
that I thought would resolve the issue and introduce the least amount of risk.
Concerning MRAB's idea of making the named arguments attri
On 4 July 2017 at 09:46, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> As noted, I disagree that people are not passing components because
>> str(e) displays them the way it does. But we're both just guessing at
>> people's motivations, so there's little point in speculating.
>
>
> I've no doubt tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
