It's actually something that's on our radar - it feels worse to me too. It's something I plan on taking a look at before 2.0 final ships.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:04 AM To: Discussion of IronPython Subject: Re: [IronPython] Semi-blocking bug in IP 2B1 Curt Hagenlocher wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Michael Foord > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In general, error reporting/tracebacks seem to be much worse in >> IronPython 2. If I have time I will try and produce a repro... >> > > If you run with a -D flag, you get much better error reporting. This > is equivalent to setting (ScriptRuntime).GlobalOptions.DebugMode = > true in a hosting scenario. > > (Thanks to Jimmy Schementi's post on the IronRuby list for pointing me at > this.) > Ok - and thanks. But we generate and execute code at runtime and need good error reporting for our users. If there is a performance implication we wouldn't want to have to set this flag just to be able to give our users useful tracebacks! The IP traceback handling is generally fine for us - but I haven't *confirmed* that IP 2 is worse - it just feels worse... We have bigger problems anyway. Now I have ironed out the obvious problems, Resolver One runs on IP 2 but the user interface is completely broken. That is all pure-Python code so I have some digging to do... :-) Michael > -- > Curt Hagenlocher > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
