Dino Viehland wrote: > Yep, it's fixed and the tracebacks should now be better than they have ever > been (even in 1.x). There were some small perf regressions from fixing it > that I'm still working in resolving though - primarily around throwing > additional overhead when throwing exceptions. >
Cool. Seo only wasted a couple of hours fixing this for a FePy release of 2b1. :-) How did this regression slip past the IP test suite by the way? Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:10 PM > To: Discussion of IronPython > Subject: Re: [IronPython] Traceback regression > > Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > >> Traceback has regressed. >> >> > > Seo thinks this might actually now be fixed in the repository > (http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=11116 > is marked as closed in 2.0 Beta 2). > > If this *isn't* fixed it would be a major blocker for Resolver - it > would prevent us providing accurate error messages to our users. > > All the best, > > > Michael Foord > http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ > > >> import sys >> def f(): 1/0 >> try: f() >> except: tb = sys.exc_info()[2] >> while tb: >> print tb.tb_lineno >> tb = tb.tb_next >> >> CPython: 3 2 >> IronPython 1.1.1: 3 2 >> IronPython 2.0a5: 2 >> IronPython 2.0b1: (nothing) >> >> This is not 1.x->2.x regression. This is regression between 2.x series. >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
