On 24/09/2013 09:06, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 24 September 2013 17:34, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:25:10 +1000 >> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> You are setting the bar unreasonably high for an error message that >>> has to convey a complex concept in as few words as possible. There is >>> *NO* wording that can concisely express the concepts involved without >>> resorting to jargon, because the concepts behind it are *complex and >>> unintuitive*. The current wording is flat out wrong, because the >>> exception isn't being ignored, it's being printed to stderr. If it was >>> genuinely being ignored, people wouldn't complain about it. >>> >>> Jargon that can be easily looked up with a search engine is greatly >>> superior to a message that is simply wrong, as the former provides a >>> gateway to understanding, just like coming across a word you don't >>> understand when reading a novel. >> >> "Unraisable" is not a word I don't understand, it's a word that I >> understand and which conveys the wrong meaning. > > How is it wrong? At the point where the interpreter says "This > exception is now unraisable", what, precisely, is it saying that is > wrong? > > It isn't saying "this has never been raised". It is saying, "where it > is currently being processed, this exception cannot be raised". > >> If you want something that people won't understand, you can use >> something like "asynchronous exception". > > Asynchronous exception is *even more* wrong, because that's the > terminology used for an exception injected into the current thread by > a different thread. > >>> Preferring the status quo because >>> you're holding out a forlorn hope for a concise wording that explains: >> >> I've proposed other options. > > "Automatically caught" says nothing about why the exception is being > printed to stderr instead of propagating normally. Exceptions are > automatically caught by any matching except clause all the time, but > most of those don't result in errors printed to stderr. > Why not just say something like "Cannot propagate exception..."; it's simpler than "Unpropagatable exception...".
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