> 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. Greg Ward expresses my sentiments: > +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 > > ? I'd special-case any filename that starts with < and ends with > -- those are all made-up names like <string> or <stdin>. You can display them however you like, perhaps In "<string>", line 3 For regular files I'd leave the formatting alone -- there are tools out there that parse these. (E.g. Emacs' Python mode jumps to the line with the error if you run a file and it begets an exception.) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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