Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org>: > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > > 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> > > Here is an example: > > >>> class Spam: > ... def eggs(self): > ... return self.ham > ... > >>> s = Spam() > >>> s.eggs() > Traceback (innermost last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? > File "<stdin>", line 3, in eggs > AttributeError: ham > > With the suggested changes, this would print as > > Traceback (innermost last): > Line 1 of <stdin> > Line 3 of <stdin>, in Spam.eggs > AttributeError: ham IMHO, this is not a good idea. Emacs users like me want traceback labels to be *more* like C compiler error messages, not less. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion -- George Washington & John Adams, in a diplomatic message to Malta.
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