On Mar 8, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I am trying to remember why I made site.py failures non-fatal in the > first place. I don't have any specific recollection but it must've > been either from before the separation between site.py (part of the > stdlib) and sitecustomize.py (site-specific) or out of a worry that if > some external cause broke site.py (which does a lot of I/O) it would > be a fatal breakdown of all Python execution. The thing that occurs to me is that one might want to write an administrative tool in Python to manipulate site.py, or even just some data that something in site.py would load. If exceptions from site.py were fatal, then bugs in such a tool would be completely unrecoverable; in trying to run it to un-do the buggy operation, it would crash immediately. On the other hand, such a tool should *really* be invoked with the -S option anyway, so... maybe not that pressing of a concern. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100308/b265ae51/attachment.html>
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