On 9/26/2013 3:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 26 September 2013 16:53, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: >>> Sure, that's doable, but it dumps the full repr of "obj" in the middle >>> of the sentence. The thing that's not practical is the neat and tidy >>> wording Georg proposed, because the thing passed as "obj" is actually >>> an arbitrary Python object that may have a messy repr (like a bound >>> method, which is what gets passed in the __del__ case), so there's >>> definite merit in keeping that repr at the *end* of the header line. >> >> Then this should be fine, I guess? >> >> Exception caught and not propagated in: <....> > > Sure. I still prefer something like "Could not propagate exception > from:" or "Caller could not propagate exception from <repr>" that > better indicates we're suppressing it because it's infeasible to raise > it rather than just because we feel like it, but any of them would > offer a decent improvement over the status quo. With the full traceback printed, with the line where the exception originated, I do not think that the representation of the object is needed. It was a substitute for the traceback. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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