[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

Gordon C added the comment: I know this is an old bug (my first-time contribution), but I checked and it still applies in current versions. As suggested by @belopolsky, I added runcall to Trace and made runfunc an alias for it. I also updated the tests for trace to reflect the change to runcal

[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

Changes by Alexander Belopolsky : -- versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubsc

[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: I've ran into a problem adding context manager functionality to Profile/Trace objects. When profile/trace function is set in __enter__ and removed in __exit__ it catches two spurious events: a return from __enter__ and a call to __exit__. This is part

[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

Georg Brandl added the comment: Sounds good to me. -- nosy: +georg.brandl ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Uns

[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: The runfunc/runcall difference is the easiest to address. I propose to add runcall to Trace as an alias to runfunc and deprecate runfunc. In addition, I propose to add __enter__ and __exit__ methods to both Trace and Profile so that they can be used a

[issue9941] Unify trace and profile interfaces

New submission from Alexander Belopolsky : The trace and profile modules provide similar functionality, but have some gratuitous differences in their APIs and command line interfaces. For example, the method to trace a single call is Trace.runfunc, but almost identical Profile method is called