Message287869
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
David Ford (FirefighterBlu3), martin.panter, vstinner |
| Date |
2017-02-15.17:31:04 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAMpsgwYwjL-YmTLOd2vm_GshcUXdBCEEgweWMBZ5G6BPQVXBMw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1487159159.01.0.53164943282.issue29564@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
David Ford (FirefighterBlu3) added the comment:
> @stinner your traceback suggestion was highly useful and much appreciated. i have spent several dozen hours researching ResourceWarnings in the past and tearing my hair out because the emitted warning was very much useless. i couldn't even make educated guesses about the code as socket pairs were used randomly.
So did I. Why do you think that I implemented this feature? :-D
> i strongly approve of mentioning the tracemalloc / traceback in the warning, and i would also very much encourage saying "this filename:position could be completely wrong" or do away with it all together.
I dislike removing filename:line information: in some cases, the
information is valid and helps to understand a warning.
Ok, let's go to add a line suggestion to enable tracemalloc. Is there
someone here interested to propose a pull request? It should only be
done in Python 3.7 and later 3.6, it's a new feature in Python 3.6. |
|