On 24 September 2013 08:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:38:48 -0700
> Ethan Furman wrote:
>> > But that's because you already know what it's supposed to convey. The
>> > average user doesn't, and only sees "unraisable".
>>
>> All the more reason to have text in the error messag
On 24 September 2013 10:50, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> MRAB writes:
>
> > > The word doesn't literally mean the exception itself was unraisable. It
> > > means it was raised, we caught it and we're writing it to stderr because
> > > we *can't raise it again*.
>
> > Ah, you mean "unreraisable
On 24 September 2013 17:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Preferring the status quo because
> you're holding out a forlorn hope for a concise wording that explains:
>
> - there are places where exceptions may occur but the interpreter
> can't reraise them
> - this is one of those cases, so we're printing
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:25:10 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> You are setting the bar unreasonably high for an error message that
> has to convey a complex concept in as few words as possible. There is
> *NO* wording that can concisely express the concepts involved without
> resorting to jargon, bec
On 24 September 2013 09:34, Ned Deily wrote:
> In general, I think this is a very important usability feature and I
> am in favor of the general approach. Good work, all! I do have some
> comments, primarily about items that are not currently addressed.
Your reply and Barry's suggest that Bette
On 24 September 2013 17:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:25:10 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> You are setting the bar unreasonably high for an error message that
>> has to convey a complex concept in as few words as possible. There is
>> *NO* wording that can concisely expres
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:06:15 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> How is it wrong? At the point where the interpreter says "This
> exception is now unraisable", what, precisely, is it saying that is
> wrong?
> It isn't saying "this has never been raised". It is saying, "where it
> is currently being pro
On 24/09/2013 09:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 24 September 2013 17:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:25:10 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
You are setting the bar unreasonably high for an error message that
has to convey a complex concept in as few words as possible. There is
*NO* wor
On 23.09.13 17:18, Skip Montanaro wrote:
It would be great if the docstring contained a link to the online
documentation.
That would have to be a feature of help(), not hardcoded in each docstring.
That *is* a feature of the help function:
Help on built-in module sys:
help(sys)
NAME
On 24 Sep 2013 20:06, "MRAB" wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2013 09:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 24 September 2013 17:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:25:10 +1000
>>> Nick Coghlan wrote:
You are setting the bar unreasonably high for an error message that
has
24.09.2013 10:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:06:15 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
How is it wrong? At the point where the interpreter says "This
exception is now unraisable", what, precisely, is it saying that is
wrong?
It isn't saying "this has never been raised". It is saying,
On 9/24/2013 5:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Why not just say something like "Cannot propagate exception..."; it's
> simpler than "Unpropagatable exception...".
That would definitely be an improvement on the status quo and avoids
Antoine's concern about an adjective being interpreted as an inhe
Am 24.09.2013 00:11, schrieb Greg Ewing:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Yes, but I agree with Greg that "unraisable" is wrong. After all, it
>> was raised, and it can even be caught by the programmer (inside
>> __del__).
>
> How about something like "Uncaught exception in __del__
> method ignored"? It
Am 23.09.2013 00:03, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> AFAIU, the proposal is to embed parts of the concise docstring into the
> more
> verbose .rst documentation.
>
>
> I still think that's a bad idea. Someone editing the docstring may introduce a
> terminology change or some other style/gra
14 matches
Mail list logo
