[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Python or Perl for a Debian maintainance project?

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:53:53PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> >> The description is very useful to the programmer. Much more useful than
> >> a simple segmentation fault (I hope you don't run every binary under gdb
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> with debugging symbols enabled for day-to-day use). It is not very
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Of course not, I can extract a perfectly good stack trace from any
> > core dump. It is not necessary to run binaries under gdb with
> > debugging symbols enabled for this to work; why would it be?
> >
> >> useful to a clueless user, but this is a feature. An exception should
> >> not be raised to the user.
> >
> > Well yeah, that's what we're talking about. What are you trying to
> > say, again?
> I'm not trying to say, I'm saying that a Python program that aborts due
> to an exception is:
>   1. buggy
>   2. more useful than something that aborts with no stack trace or a C
>      program that simply dumps core (or does not, depending on the
>      _user's_ ulimit settings). The user just has to copy-paste the
>      stack trace for the developper to be able to know where the bug
>      came from.
> Can you understand that?

Yes, you've got no idea what I was talking about and have managed to
be completely irrelevant.

Try comparing a python program that aborts due to an exception with a
program that handles the error and emits a proper error message. Then
you might begin to approximate the subject.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: