On 09/22/2013 08:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 23 Sep 2013 06:38, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu>> wrote: >> >> On 9/22/2013 2:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu> >>> <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu>>> wrote: >>> >>> On 9/21/2013 10:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> >>> Exceptions in __del__ point to bugs (sometimes in the stdlib) that >>> should be fixed, period. The only reason they do not result in >>> exceptions that are properly bubbled up and catchable is because >>> __del__ >>> is called from a DECREF macro which has no return value. >>> >>> >>> That is clear enough. What fooled me is the word 'ignored', in both >>> the doc and message. How about 'skipped' (for technical reasons)? >>> >>> >>> That's a good point, although I'm not sure 'skipped' is better. >> >> >> Only slightly ;-). The problem with both words is that they try to say two things. What happened, and what Python did about it. >> >> >>> Maybe use a more neutral verb like 'occurred'? >> >> >> "Exception occurred in ..." is even better at say what happened. >> >> I think we should then add an explict statement as to what Python did, and hint at what the user should do, something like >> "Although caught internally, it still indicates a problem." > > Brevity is still a virtue. The relevant C API function is called "PyErr_WriteUnraisable", so just starting the message > as something like "Unraisable exception suppressed in..." might work. I like that! +1 -- ~Ethan~
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