RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 7 15:05:21 CEST 2010 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103494.html

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 07:34, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:29 AM, brian.curtin <python-checkins at python.org>
> wrote:
> > Author: brian.curtin
> > Date: Mon Sep  6 18:29:29 2010
> > New Revision: 84559
> >
> > Log:
> > Fix #8956. ValueError message was only mentioning one signal.
> >
> > Rather than list out the three signals (or more over time), the message
> was
> > made less specific but still descriptive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Modified:
> >   python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py
> >
> > Modified: python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py      (original)
> > +++ python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py      Mon Sep  6 18:29:29 2010
> > @@ -983,7 +983,7 @@
> >             elif sig == signal.CTRL_BREAK_EVENT:
> >                 os.kill(self.pid, signal.CTRL_BREAK_EVENT)
> >             else:
> > -                raise ValueError("Only SIGTERM is supported on Windows")
> > +                raise ValueError("Unsupported signal")
>
> Would it be worth including the signal number here, to at least give
> some hint as to exactly which signal was received?
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.

Sure, seems reasonable to me.
Does """raise ValueError("Unsupported signal: {}".format(sig))""" look fine,
or is there a more preferred format when displaying bad values in exception
messages?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100907/76f260fe/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/103494.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r84559 - python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py