On Feb 28, 2007, at 1:50 AM, Andrew Dalke wrote: > Glyph: >> This seems like kind of a strange micro-optimization to have an >> impact >> on a language change discussion. > > Just as a reminder, my concern is that people reuse exceptions > (rarely) > and that the behavior of the "with_exceptions()" method is ambiguous > when that happens. It has nothing to do with optimization. > > The two solutions of: > 1. always replace an existing __traceback__ > 2. never replace an existing __traceback__ > both seem to lead to problems.
I may be strange, or in left field, or both. Since the traceback is the object that is always created, it would seem natural to me that the traceback have a reference to the exception and not the other way around. It would also seem to be a good place to attach a nested traceback which intern has it's own reference to its exception. I never really thought about it when they were just peer objects traveling up the stack. Just an idea from a different seat ;) -Shane Holloway _______________________________________________ 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
