On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> That said, while I think Vinay's suggested "handler of last resort" >> solution is a good one and something we should be doing for 3.2, I'm >> also happy to let the idea bake for at least a few weeks. > > I agree on the baking part, since it will allow time for any drawbacks to be > spotted or better solutions found. There are also the questions of what level > and format to use for the handler of last resort, before it can actually be > implemented.
As a starting point, I'd say warnings and above, no formatting (i.e. just the message). To minimise bikeshedding, I'd like to be guided by the idea that this is a more configurable alternative to printing directly to stderr, but in the absence of application level configuration, you wouldn't be able to tell which approach the library was using just by looking at the program output. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
