On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 17:53, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Sidnei da Silva <sidnei <at> enfoldsystems.com> writes: > >> I do have one suggestion for improvement: instead of requiring the >> person to do this monkey patching, add a new 'log' action to the >> warnings filter as described by PEP 230 [1] (see: 'The Warnings >> Filter' section). This way, changing the behavior of how warnings are >> displayed (or not) is kept consistent and documented. >> >> [1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0230/ >> > > I see from PEP-230 the following under "Rejected Concerns" stated by GvR: > > "Paul Prescod, Barry Warsaw and Fred Drake have brought up several additional > concerns that I feel aren't critical. I address them here (the concerns are > paraphrased, not exactly their words):" > > [other concerns omitted] > - Barry: I'd like to add my own warning action. Maybe if `action' > could be a callable as well as a string. Then in my IDE, I > could set that to "mygui.popupWarningsDialog". > > Response: For that purpose you would override warnings.showwarning(). > [other concerns omitted] > > So, monkey-patching appears to be the suggested approach. Indeed, ISTM that the > showwarning function is there specifically for the purpose of being > monkey-patched out. > It is specifically there to be overridden (and as an aside, it was a pain to support in the C port of warnings), so it really isn't monkey-patching. =) -Brett
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