On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
TP> It seems that, in general, the use of LogMsg is inconsistent.You're right about that. It would be a good thing to clean up the use of LogMsg. I usually do the substitution before passing it to LogMsg, but some of the older code does it the other way.
TP> Any opinions about whether this is TP> a good idea, whether it will work, or whether there is a TP> better way to approach this problem? | try: | logf.write(msg % args + '\n') | except: | logf.write(msg + '\n')Just a point of Python style. It's almost never appropriate to use a "bare" except like this because it can mask unexpected exceptions. In this case using "except TypeError" would do the trick.
ok, thanks for the tip.
This is probably okay as a stopgap, but it would be better to make the use of LogMsg more consistent.
it wouldn't be a big job. there are only about 50 occurrences of LogMsg calls in all files under the Mailman python directory, and of these, only about 20 seem to have '%' substitution characters in the msg argument:
cd ~mailman/Mailman grep LogMsg * | grep '%' | wc
the ones that pass an arg tuple would simply have to be changed so that the ',' between the msg and args arguments is a '%' to do the substitutions before the call. then, remove the '%' substitution in LogMsg.
--
Todd Pfaff \ Email: pfaff@mcmaster.ca
Computing and Information Services \ Voice: (905) 525-9140 x22920
ABB 132 \ FAX: (905) 528-3773
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1 \