Guido's talk at PyCon said: > Use raise E(arg).with_traceback(tb) > instead of raise E, arg, tb
That seems strange to me because of the mutability. Looking through the back discussions on this list I see Guido commented: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-February/005689.html > Returning the mutated object is acceptable here > because the *dominant* use case is creating and raising an exception > in one go: > > raise FooException(<args>).with_traceback(<tb>) The 3 argument raise statement is rarely used, in my experience. I believe most don't even know it exists, excepting mostly advanced Python programmers and language lawyers. My concern when I saw Guido's keynote was the worry that people do/might write code like this NO_END_OF_RECORD = ParserError("Cannot find end of record") def parse_record(input_file): ... raise NO_END_OF_RECORD ... That is, create instances at the top of the module, to be used later. This code assume that the NO_END_OF_RECORD exception instance is never modified. If the traceback is added to its __traceback__ attribute then I see two problems if I were to write code like the above: - the traceback stays around "forever" - the code is no longer thread-safe. As an example of code which is affected by this, see pyparsing, which has code that looks like class Token(ParserElement): """Abstract ParserElement subclass, for defining atomic matching patterns."" " def __init__( self ): super(Token,self).__init__( savelist=False ) self.myException = ParseException("",0,"",self) .... class Literal(Token): .... def parseImpl( self, instring, loc, doActions=True ): if (instring[loc] == self.firstMatchChar and (self.matchLen==1 or instring.startswith(self.match,loc)) ): return loc+self.matchLen, self.match #~ raise ParseException( instring, loc, self.errmsg ) exc = self.myException exc.loc = loc exc.pstr = instring raise exc The "Literal" and other token classes are part of the grammar definition and usually exist in module scope. There's another question I came up with. If the exception already has a __traceback__, will that traceback be overwritten if the instance is reraised? Consider this code, loosly derived from os._execvpe import os, sys _PATH = ["here", "there", "elsewhere"] def open_file_on_path(name): # If nothing exists, raises an exception based on the # first attempt saved_err = None saved_tb = None for dirname in _PATH: try: return open(os.path.join(dirname, name)) except Exception, err: if not saved_err: saved_err = err saved_tb = sys.exc_info()[2] raise saved_err.__class__, saved_err, saved_tb open_file_on_path("spam") which generates this Traceback (most recent call last): File "raise.py", line 19, in <module> open_file_on_path("spam") File "raise.py", line 11, in open_file_on_path return open(os.path.join(dirname, name)) IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'here/spam' What is the correct way to rewrite this for use with "with_traceback"? Is it def open_file_on_path(name): # If nothing exists, raises an exception based on the # first attempt saved_err = None for dirname in _PATH: try: return open(os.path.join(dirname, name)) except Exception, err: if not saved_err: saved_err = err saved_tb = sys.exc_info()[2] raise saved_err.with_traceback(saved_err.__traceback__) One alternative, btw, is raise saved_err.with_traceback() to have it use the existing __traceback__ (and raising its own exception if __traceback__ is None?) Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
