On 23/09/2013 22:19, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 Sep 2013 01:24, "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net <mailto:solip...@pitrou.net>> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:51:04 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com <mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 23 September 2013 18:45, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net <mailto:solip...@pitrou.net>> wrote: > > > Le Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:17:51 +1000, > > > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com <mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > >> > > >> Here's what I suggest changing that error to: > > >> > > >> >>> del x > > >> Unraisable exception suppressed when calling <bound method C.__del__ > > >> of <__main__.C object at 0x7f98b8b61538>> > > >> Traceback (most recent call last): > > >> File "<stdin>", line 3, in __del__ > > >> RuntimeError: Going away now > > > > > > Why not simply "Exception automatically caught in <bound method > > > C.__del__> [...]" ? > > > > It only answers the "what" (i.e. the exception was automatically > > caught), without addressing the "why" (i.e. because there wasn't > > anything else useful the interpreter could do with it) > > Yes, but I agree with Greg that "unraisable" is wrong. After all, it > was raised, and it can even be caught by the programmer (inside > __del__). The word doesn't literally mean the exception itself was unraisable. It means it was raised, we caught it and we're writing it to stderr because we *can't raise it again*.
Ah, you mean "unreraisable". :-)
The relevant C API function is just called "PyErr_WriteUnraisable", not "PyErr_WriteUnraisableButThatIsTechnicallyWrongSinceItWasAlreadyRaisedAndWeJustCaughtItAndAreNowReportingItToStdErr".
_______________________________________________ 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
