James Knight writes:
> I still don't see why people think the python interpreter should be
> automatically providing __context__. To me it seems like it'll just
> clutter things up for no good reason. If you really want the other
> exception, you can access it via the local variable in the frame
>
On Sat, 21 May 2005, James Y Knight wrote:
> On May 20, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > This only helps if you can get to a debugger. What if you're
> > reading your web server's error log?
>
> Then you're in trouble anyways because you need the contents of some
> local to figure out w
On May 20, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This only helps if you can get to a debugger. What if you're
> reading your web server's error log?
Then you're in trouble anyways because you need the contents of some
local to figure out what's going on, also.
James
_
On May 20, 2005, at 4:31 AM, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__?
>>
>
> Well, it depends whose needs we're trying to meet.
>
> If we want to satisfy those who have been asking for chaining
> of unexpected secondary exceptions, then w
[Guido van Rossum]
> > Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__?
[Ka-Ping Yee]
> Well, it depends whose needs we're trying to meet.
>
> If we want to satisfy those who have been asking for chaining
> of unexpected secondary exceptions, then we have to provide that
> on some attribute.
>
