On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 07:34, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:29 AM, brian.curtin <python-check...@python.org>
> wrote:
> > Author: brian.curtin
> > Date: Mon Sep 6 18:29:29 2010
> > New Revision: 84559
> >
> > Log:
> > Fix #8956. ValueError message was only mentioning one signal.
> >
> > Rather than list out the three signals (or more over time), the message
> was
> > made less specific but still descriptive.
> >
> >
> >
> > Modified:
> > python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py
> >
> > Modified: python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py (original)
> > +++ python/branches/py3k/Lib/subprocess.py Mon Sep 6 18:29:29 2010
> > @@ -983,7 +983,7 @@
> > elif sig == signal.CTRL_BREAK_EVENT:
> > os.kill(self.pid, signal.CTRL_BREAK_EVENT)
> > else:
> > - raise ValueError("Only SIGTERM is supported on Windows")
> > + raise ValueError("Unsupported signal")
>
> Would it be worth including the signal number here, to at least give
> some hint as to exactly which signal was received?
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
Sure, seems reasonable to me.
Does """raise ValueError("Unsupported signal: {}".format(sig))""" look fine,
or is there a more preferred format when displaying bad values in exception
messages?
_______________________________________________
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
