Author pitrou
Recipients eric.snow, flox, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, pitrou
Date 2013-05-12.11:11:20
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1368357075.2535.1.camel@fsol>
In-reply-to <>
> Mostly looks good to me, but I think I'd prefer that attempts to clear
> a running frame raise RuntimeError with an appropriate message.

Hmm, why not. My intuition was to make frame.clear() a best-effort
method, but this sounds ok too.

> I also wonder how this might relate to Eric Snow's proposal to
> reference the currently executing function from the frame object (see
> issue 12857). It seems to me that the "f_func" pointer in that patch
> could serve the same purpose as the "f_executing" boolean flag in this
> patch, while providing additional information about the execution
> context.

Yes, perhaps. Then Eric's patch can incorporate that change once the
frame.clear() patch is committed.

> (We may want to add a "clear_frames" convenience method to tracebacks
> as well)

That, or in the traceback module. The reason I'm proposing this one as a
frame method is that it can't be done in pure Python.
Date User Action Args
2013-05-12 11:11:20pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, flox, eric.snow
2013-05-12 11:11:20pitroulinkissue17934 messages
2013-05-12 11:11:20pitroucreate