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
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Feb 9, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Michael Hudson wrote:
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
At 12:21 AM 2/10/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
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
At 11:25 PM 2/9/05 +, Michael Hudson wrote:
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Phillip I was just responding to the OP, who was advocating it for
Phillip Python default behavior, or behavior controlled by the command
Phillip line. That's why I said, Yes, but not as a default behavior.
My original intent was that it would probably not fly as default behavior.
