Jonathan Gardner <jgard...@jonathangardner.net> wrote: > On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >> In message >> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Jonathan Gardner wrote: >> > I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a >> > nice feature for Python. >> >> > Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming >> > language with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.) >> >> Didnt it have source line numbers in it? >> >> What more do you need? > > I don't know, but I tend to find the name of the function I called to > be useful. It's much more memorable than line numbers, particularly > when line numbers keep changing. > > I doubt it's just me, though.
Some problems with using just line numbers to track errors: In any language it isn't much use if you get a bug report from a shipped program that says there was an error on line 793 but no report of exactly which version of the shipped code was being run. Microsoft love telling you the line number: if IE gets a Javascript error it reports line number but not filename, so you have to guess which of the HTML page or one of many included files actually had the error. Plus the line number that is reported is often slightly off. Javascript in particular is often sent to the browser compressed then uncompressed and eval'd. That makes line numbers completely useless for tracking down bugs as you'll always get the line number of the eval. Also the way functions are defined in Javascript means you'll often have almost every function listed in a backtrace as 'Anonymous'. -- Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
