Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Have you tried it? Looked to do what you described to me when I run a
> sample. Note that is an unadorned raise with no args. The idea is to
> simply modify the exception object and then use raise to carry the
> whole original exception along as if not intercepted.
Nicolas Fleury wrote:
> Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
>> How about dropping reraise and changing:
>> reraise(...)
>> to:
>> addinfo(...)
>> raise
>
>
> It doesn't work, or at least it doesn't do what I want. I want to keep
> the same exception stack to be able to i
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> How about dropping reraise and changing:
> reraise(...)
> to:
> addinfo(...)
> raise
It doesn't work, or at least it doesn't do what I want. I want to keep
the same exception stack to be able to identify the original error. I
would lik
Nicolas Fleury wrote:
> Hi,
> I've made a small utility to re-raise an exception with the same stack
> as before with additional information in it. Since I want to keep the
> same exception type and that some types have very specific constructors
> (which take, for example, more than one parame
Hi,
I've made a small utility to re-raise an exception with the same stack
as before with additional information in it. Since I want to keep the
same exception type and that some types have very specific constructors
(which take, for example, more than one parameter), the only safe way I
have
