On Jan 3, 2018 18:38, "Dmitry Kazakov" <waultah@gmail.com> wrote: Hello! I'd like to draw some attention to the feature(s) proposed in the issue 31299. https://bugs.python.org/issue31299 It's a dependency of the other issue, it still needs discussion, and it hasn't received any comments from committers since last September. Personally, I think that a general traceback cleaning facility proposed by Antoine should be accompanied by a similar non-destructive feature in a traceback module. If it's decided that the latter makes sense implementing, I'm willing to revive (and update) the PR I've closed earlier in time for the approaching Python 3.7 feature code cutoff. Regarding the ability to mutate a traceback to add/remove frames, there's a PR here, which I think is enough to do what Antoine was talking about: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4793 (It's been sitting for 24 days, maybe someone could review it?) If you want a general way to mark certain frames in tracebacks as being hidden, then I think the big question is what the actual API for marking them should look like. Being able to mark a whole module as never showing up in tracebacks is pretty crude -- should it be per-function? What would it look like, a decorator? That's probably difficult to implement without first implementing bpo-12857 (which would be a good idea anyway!). If an invisible function calls another function that's neither marked as visible or invisible, should the default be that it's visible, or that it inherits its parent's visibility? -n