On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Christian Tismer wrote: > >>p.s.: I would probably have done the exception saving > >>in the caller's frame, where it belongs, IMHO. > > > > I'm going to see if this is feasible. The current method is almost > > certainly more efficient, but seems very backwards. > > No, I didn't refer to your code, but just to the > implementation of (re)set_exc_info. Actually, we're on the same page. > I would have understood this much easier, if the saved exception were > saved in the caller's frame. I'm not proposing a change, but maybe a > comment, why this must be saved. Yes, probably it is most efficient to do > it as it is. (Although functions called in an exception context are > probably not the normal case which needs to be optimal). Exactly. This is why I'm fairly certain that nobody looks at the frame.f_exc_* values, since they make no sense in the context of that frame. It should be trivial to dereference the traceback to find the generating frame and stow the values there. -Kevin -- -- Kevin Jacobs The OPAL Group - Enterprise Systems Architect Voice: (216) 986-0710 x 19 E-mail: jacobs@theopalgroup.com Fax: (216) 986-0714 WWW: http://www.theopalgroup.com
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