On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 September 2017 at 04:04, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2017 4:06 PM, "Eric Snow" <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > run(code): > > > > Run the provided Python code in the interpreter, in the current > > OS thread. If the interpreter is already running then raise > > RuntimeError in the interpreter that called ``run()``. > > > > The current interpreter (which called ``run()``) will block until > > the subinterpreter finishes running the requested code. Any > > uncaught exception in that code will bubble up to the current > > interpreter. > > > > > > This phrase "bubble up" here is doing a lot of work :-). Can you > elaborate > > on what you mean? The text now makes it seem like the exception will just > > pass from one interpreter into another, but that seems impossible – it'd > > mean sharing not just arbitrary user defined exception classes but full > > frame objects... > > Indeed, I think this will need to be something more akin to > https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html# > subprocess.CalledProcessError, > where the child interpreter is able to pass back encoded text data > (perhaps including a full rendered traceback), but the exception > itself won't be able to be propagated. > It would be helpful if at least the exception type could somehow be preserved / restored / mimicked. Otherwise you need if-elif statements in your try-excepts and other annoying stuff. -- Koos -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
_______________________________________________ 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
