On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 10:57 -0700, Paul McNett wrote: > Terry Reedy wrote: > > "Ed Leafe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>I'm serious here: I want to know what people consider acceptable for a > >>software package that relies on other packages. > > > To me, acceptability depends on the audience. Do you want to limit Dabo to > > professional developers comfortable with sometimes cryptic traceback > > messages or do you want to include people using Python as part of other > > activities? > > My concern with putting another layer on top of Python's excellent > traceback mechanism is that we could screw up and hide important > exceptions, or otherwise make it harder for the seasoned Pythonista to > get to the source of the issue. Nothing beats those tracebacks, ugly > though they may seem to a newbie... perhaps we need both methods, and to > default to the "nice" error handler.
That sounds great. And fwiw, even "seasoned" developers like to be pointed directly to the problem if at all possible. For instance, it may be clear from the traceback *what* the error is, but unless you RTFM or are intimately familiar with wx, you may not immediately know how to solve it. Even if the traceback ended with an appropriate link to the FAQ, that would be outstanding. BTW, I'm with Terry: these discussions have definitely convinced me to give Dabo a try. Regards, Cliff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.develix.com :: Web applications and hosting :: Linux, PostgreSQL and Python specialists :: -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
