Re: [Async-sig] Simplifying stack traces for tasks?

Thanks for the feedback! I put this aside for a while but I'm coming back to it now and cleaning it up. The approach used in this first post was obviously very clumsy. In my latest version I am using module instance directly (as shown in Nathaniel's reply) and using the qualified package name (as

Re: [Async-sig] Simplifying stack traces for tasks?

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Mark E. Haase wrote: > If an exception is thrown while the `asyncio` event loop is running, the > stack trace is pretty complicated. Here's an example: > [...] > > I'm posting here to get constructive criticism on the concept and would also >

Re: [Async-sig] Simplifying stack traces for tasks?

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Mark E. Haase wrote: ... > print('Async Traceback (most recent call last):') > for frame in traceback.extract_tb(tb): > head, tail = os.path.split(frame.filename) > if (head.endswith('asyncio') or tail ==

Re: [Async-sig] Simplifying stack traces for tasks?

I'm not asking to change Python's default behavior. I'm asking if anybody else likes this idea, has ideas to make it better, and would use it if I published some form of it on PyPI. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Svetlov wrote: > AFAIK Python never hides

Re: [Async-sig] Simplifying stack traces for tasks?

AFAIK Python never hides stdlib codelines in tracebacks. Why we should start to do it in asyncio? On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM Mark E. Haase wrote: > If an exception is thrown while the `asyncio` event loop is running, the > stack trace is pretty complicated. Here's an