How to pop the interpreter's stack?

[Carl Banks]

On Dec 25, 6:21 am, Robert Kern <robert.k... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/24/10 4:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:38:05 -0800, Carl Banks wrote:
> >> OTOH, going the extra mile to hide useful information from a user is
> >> asinine. As a user, I will decide for myself how I want to use
> >> implementation-defined information, and I don't want the implementor to
> >> decide this for me. It's bad enough if an implementor fails to provide
> >> information out of laziness, but when they deliberately do extra work to
> >> hide information, that's self-importance and arrogance.
>
> > But that of course is nonsense, because as the user you don't decide
> > anything of the sort. The developer responsible for writing the function
> > decides what information he provides you, starting with whether you get
> > an exception at all, where it comes from, the type of exception, and the
> > error message (if any).
>
> Carl isn't arguing that the user is or should be responsible for this sort of
> thing. He is arguing that developers should be responsible for doing this in
> such a way that is beneficial for the developer/user down the road.

I'm not even arguing that; I think I would be content if the developer
merely doesn't actively work to harm the user.


Carl Banks