On 02 May 2000, Ka-Ping Yee said:
> I propose the following stylistic changes to traceback
> printing:
>
> 1. If there is no function name for a given level
> in the traceback, just omit the ", in ?" at the
> end of the line.
+0 on this: it doesn't really add anything, but it does neaten things
up.
> 2. If a given level of the traceback is in a method,
> instead of just printing the method name, print
> the class and the method name.
+1 here too: this definitely adds utility.
> 3. Instead of beginning each line with:
>
> File "foo.py", line 5
>
> print the line first and drop the quotes:
>
> Line 5 of foo.py
-0: adds nothing, cleans nothing up, and just generally breaks things
for no good reason.
> In the common interactive case that the file
> is a typed-in string, the current printout is
>
> File "<stdin>", line 1
>
> and the following is easier to read in my opinion:
>
> Line 1 of <stdin>
OK, that's a good reason. Maybe you could special-case the "<stdin>"
case? How about
<stdin>, line 1
?
Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4