Message227803
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
Claudiu.Popa, berker.peksag, georg.brandl, pitrou, pjenvey, python-dev, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2014年09月29日.15:29:42 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1412004583.1.0.220372899481.issue17442@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
After reconsidering Terry's idle example, it seems to me that the change could adversely impact existing code that already works around the lack of chained tracebacks, even as idle does. So I committed this to 3.5 only as an enhancement.
Thanks Claudiu.
As an aside, isn't it a (pre-existing) bug that if an excepthook exists, it gets passed None for the traceback? |
|