At 11:25 PM 2/9/05 +0000, Michael Hudson wrote: >"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes: > > > At 08:20 PM 2/9/05 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > >>Does Skip's idea have > >>any merit? > > > > Yes, but not as a default behavior. Many people already consider the > > fact that tracebacks display file paths to be a potential security > > problem. If anything, the default traceback display should have less > > information, not more. (E.g., display module __name__ instead of the > > code's __file__). > >Oh, come on. Making tracebacks less useful to protect people who >accidentally spray them across the internet seems absurd. Would you >like them not to show source, either? I said that many people considered that to be the case, not that I did. ;) I'd personally prefer to read module names than filenames, so I guess I should've mentioned that. :) Of course, Guido has previously answered the filename vs. modulename question (years ago in fact), so it was moot even before I mentioned it. For some reason it slipped my mind at the time, though.
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