On 09/22/2013 08:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 23 Sep 2013 06:38, "Terry Reedy" <tjre...@udel.edu
<mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>> wrote:
On 9/22/2013 2:41 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu
<mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>
<mailto:tjre...@udel.edu <mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>>> wrote:
On 9/21/2013 10:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Exceptions in __del__ point to bugs (sometimes in the stdlib) that
should be fixed, period. The only reason they do not result in
exceptions that are properly bubbled up and catchable is because
__del__
is called from a DECREF macro which has no return value.
That is clear enough. What fooled me is the word 'ignored', in both
the doc and message. How about 'skipped' (for technical reasons)?
That's a good point, although I'm not sure 'skipped' is better.
Only slightly ;-). The problem with both words is that they try to say two
things. What happened, and what Python did about it.
Maybe use a more neutral verb like 'occurred'?
"Exception occurred in ..." is even better at say what happened.
I think we should then add an explict statement as to what Python did, and hint
at what the user should do, something like
"Although caught internally, it still indicates a problem."
Brevity is still a virtue. The relevant C API function is called
"PyErr_WriteUnraisable", so just starting the message
as something like "Unraisable exception suppressed in..." might work.
I like that! +1
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
