Message108742
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
akuchling, ghazel, loewis, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date |
2010年06月26日.19:23:31 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.0074132034 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1277580213.82.0.305876811982.issue1565525@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
It is true that your proposed feature would provide a way for a programmer to manually resolve the cycle issue; however, the open issue in the pep is how to do this automatically.
But if you hold on to the traceback reference, you should *expect* all those values to persist, so that shouldn't be "surprising".
I repeat my recommendation that you take this to python-ideas for feedback, and then work on a patch if the feedback is positive.
(By the way, I checked with a twisted developer, and what he wanted was a convenient way to manually create traceback objects.) |
|