"Ethan Furman" <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote in message news:mailman.4.1292379995.6505.python-l...@python.org... > kj wrote: >> The one thing I don't like about this strategy is that the tracebacks >> of exceptions raised during the execution of __pre_spam include one >> unwanted stack level (namely, the one corresponding to __pre_spam >> itself). >> >> __pre_spam should be completely invisible and unobtrusive > > I am unaware of any way to accomplish what you desire. I also think this > is one of those things that's not worth fighting -- how often are you > going to see such a traceback? When somebody makes a coding mistake? I > would say change the name (assuming yours was a real example) to something > more meaningful like _spam_arg_verifier and call it good. > > Alternatively, perhaps you could make a more general arg_verifier that > could be used for all such needs, and then your traceback would have: > > caller > > spam > > arg_verifier > > and that seems useful to me (it is, in fact, how I have mine set up). > > Hope this helps! > > ~Ethan~
I thought people would advise using a decorator for this one. Wouldn't that work? thanks, --Tim -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
