Hello, On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:42:02 +0200 Pol Welter <polwel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hah, should have put more effort in my research then. And so recent > too. Well, it is not something easy to search for. > > I read the other thread, and I am inclined to agree with Paul. > Whether or not the execution enters the function (as in: new entry in > the call stack) during setup is really an implementation detail. > For the very same reason, I also see why the CPython devs don't want > to include a fake extra stack layer. > > Still, personally, I think that during the checking of the function > arguments, execution is logically closer to the function than the > point where it was called. I also think that the stack part of the > traceback *is* the right place to display this information. > > I'd also be fine with an extended exception message though. > > In the end, I think this is a trivial improvement. (Trivial as in 'no > adverse side effects', not trivial to implement). > Regardless if it has affected many users in the past or not (I'd say > it did!). > > I am anything but an authoritative figure on the matter, so just > consider this a firm +1 from another user. Thanks. I believe there was a suggestion in the previous threads to post a https://bugs.python.org/ ticket on that. Where it stopped for me so far is: I wanted to have a look at CPython source code to have more informative argument [to add another backtrace entry] than just "I did it on another Python implementation, it was easy". But then I travelled and switched to other set of projects, which keep me busy for the foreseeable future. So, if you're interested, feel free to post a ticket to (hopefully) get this matter going further. > > Cheers > Pol > > On 2021-04-21 01:20, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:23:15 -0000 > > "Pol Welter" <polwel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Consider the following snippet: > >> > >> ``` > >> def foo(a, b): > >> pass > >> > >> foo(1, 2, 3) > >> ``` > >> > >> We all know what will happen. > >> > >> ``` > >> File "<stdin>", line 4, in <module> > >> foo(1, 2, 3) > >> TypeError: foo() takes 2 positional arguments but 3 were given > >> ``` > >> > >> Would it be reasonable to include the line number for the function > >> `foo()` that it resolved the call to? I.e. 'File "<stdin>", line 1, > >> in foo'. > >> > >> There are situations (e.g. monkey patch) where this is not obvious. > >> Would be great detail to include that in the traceback, I think. > > That was reported some time ago: > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/dev-python/c/xdcpSJN17QQ > > https://groups.google.com/g/python-ideas/c/3jEZ9F-oUr0 > > > > Just as you, I had hard time to believe that wasn't fixed over 30 > > years of CPython history. > > > > I fixed that in my Python dialect, > > https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy , and enjoyed it thoroughly on > > multiple occasions since then. For the snippet above (put in a > > file): > > > > > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > File "ex.py", line 4, in <module> > > File "ex.py", line 2, in foo > > TypeError: foo() takes 2 positional arguments but 3 were given > > > > -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/Q2EX3QOPK3JSIVY4EQBXCHMFBA7IAYFE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
