On Sat, 2018-08-11 at 11:11 -0700, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutio
> ns.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 16:05 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > Do we have a policy for the stacklevel that should be used in
> > NumPy?
> > > How far back should the stack be displayed? I note that the
> > optimum
> > > stacklevel may vary between users and developers.
> > > 
> > 
> > I thought it was so that it will point to the correct user line (or
> > tend to point there). So stacklevel=2 for exposed and higher for
> > private (python) functions IIRC.
> > As for developers, I would hope they are OK with (and know how to)
> > turning the warning into an error.
> > 
> > Not sure we discussed it much, I seem to have a vague memory of
> > asking
> > if we are sure this is what we want and at least Ralf agreeing.
> > Also I
> > don't know how consistent it is overall.
> That sounds right to me. I think when it was introduced it was quite
> consistent, because Sebastian replace warning filters everywhere with
> suppress_warnings. Would be good to document this in the devguide.

Yeah, probably reasonably consistent, but I only added a test to check
that the stacklevel argument is never missing entirely, it is up to the
author to figure out what is the right level (or best easily possible,
since sometimes it would be pretty ugly to make it always right).

The warning testing (suppress_warnings, etc.) or any of our tests never
actually check the stacklevel that I am aware of, or maybe I forgot :),
could be something to think about though. I guess we did it around the
same time of the general warning testing cleanup probably.

- Sebastian

> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Reply via email to