Greg Ewing wrote: > Michael Foord wrote: > >> Greg Ewing wrote: >> >> >>> An exception caught and raised in one thread would >>> be vulnerable to having its traceback clobbered by >>> another thread raising the same instance. >>> >> Right - but that would still be *no worse* than the current situation >> where that information isn't available on the instance. >> > > Um -- yes, it would, because currently you don't *expect* > the traceback to be available from the exception. If > that became the standard way to handle tracebacks, then > you would expect it to work reliably. >
Um... except that the new attributes *obviously* means that the traceback information is obviously not going to work where you reuse a single instance and to expect otherwise seems naive. If the new pattern *doesn't* break existing code, but means that using a single instance for optimisation (the only justification put forward - re-raising being a slightly different case) makes that information unreliable; then I don't see that as a reason to reject the change. Michael Foord > -- > Greg > _______________________________________________ > 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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ 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
