On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I am trying to remember why I made site.py failures non-fatal in the > first place. I don't have any specific recollection but it must've > been either from before the separation between site.py (part of the > stdlib) and sitecustomize.py (site-specific) or out of a worry that if > some external cause broke site.py (which does a lot of I/O) it would > be a fatal breakdown of all Python execution. > > The thing that occurs to me is that one might want to write an > administrative tool in Python to manipulate site.py, or even just some data > that something in site.py would load.
This would be a more likely theory if we didn't have sitecustomize.py to be manipulated. > If exceptions from site.py were > fatal, then bugs in such a tool would be completely unrecoverable; in trying > to run it to un-do the buggy operation, it would crash immediately. > On the other hand, such a tool should *really* be invoked with the -S option > anyway, so... maybe not that pressing of a concern. Right. I'm leaning towards the theory that treating site.py failures as non-fatal is older than the separation between site.py and sitecustomize.py. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
