Message202754
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
alonho, benjamin.peterson, hniksic, ncoghlan, nikratio |
| Date |
2013年11月13日.14:46:46 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1384354007.21.0.640295427502.issue18861@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
So, I've been pondering the idea of traceback/frame annotations and exception trees a bit.
And what I'm wondering is if it may make sense to have the ability to annotate *frames* at runtime, and these annotations can be qualified by module names. So, for example, you might be able to write things like:
sys.annotate_frame("codecs", "encoding", the_encoding)
sys.annotate_frame("codecs", "decoding", the_encoding)
sys.annotate_frame("traceback", "hide", True)
sys.annotate_frame("traceback", "context", exc)
And then the traceback display machinery would be updated to do something useful with the annotations.
I'm not sure how ExitStack would cope with that (or other code that fakes tracebacks) but it's something to ponder. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年11月13日 14:46:47 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, hniksic, benjamin.peterson, nikratio, alonho |
| 2013年11月13日 14:46:47 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1384354007.21.0.640295427502.issue18861@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年11月13日 14:46:47 | ncoghlan | link | issue18861 messages |
| 2013年11月13日 14:46:46 | ncoghlan | create |
|