On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:02:16 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 9:05:58 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano > > wrote: > >> But I think it is a real issue. I believe in beautiful tracebacks that give > >> you just the right amount of information, neither too little nor two much. > >> Debugging is hard enough with being given more information than you need > >> and having to decide what bits to ignore and which are important. > > > > > > It would be nice if the tutorial (FAQ? Lang-Ref??) had a section on how to > > wade tracebacks > > Hmm, I don't think that's a language reference question. It's more > something that I would put into a series of blog posts. But I agree - > this is a great topic to discuss. Ultimately, debugging consists of > two things: find out more about what's going on, and dig through the > data from the first step to figure out what's significant. Tips for > helping people master either half of that are well worth publishing.
Its one of the great paradoxes of programming pedagogy: - Everyone who talks programs by default talks right programs - Everyone who writes programs by default writes wrong programs And if you dont believe that, tell me after having taught programming for 30 odd years :-) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
