GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — bpo-45711: use exc_value instead of exc_type to determine if exc_info is valid. Add more assertions. by iritkatriel · Pull Request #29627 · python/cpython Conversation
| |||||||||
|
🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @iritkatriel for commit bc889bc 🤖 If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I noticed that in some places you require type and value to be both "nullish" or both "not nullish" (where "nullish" means either NULL or Py_None), and in other places (in particular in _assert_exception_type_is_redundant()) they are required to both be the same nullishness (i.e., both NULL or both Py_None or neither of them nullish). Is there a reason for the difference?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Co-authored-by: Guido van Rossum <[email protected]>
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Yes. Most of these assertions are verifying that the change right next to them is valid. So if I replace |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, I'm through now. (Sorry for the premature send on the first batch.)
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| @@ -586,7 +633,18 @@ _PyErr_ChainStackItem(_PyErr_StackItem *exc_info) | |||
| exc2 = exc_info->exc_type; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While you're here could you change 'exc' and 'exc2' to 'type' and 'type2' (or 'typ' and 'typ2')? It drives me nuts that we mix "exc[exption]" and "typ[e]" for the same concept (this must date back to Python 1 when the value was not an exception instance and the exception could be any object).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All good! (Alas, I'm still stuck trying to wrap my head around the except* implementation, so that one will probably have to wait until next week.)
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
… is valid. Add more assertions. (pythonGH-29627)
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.