[Zope3-dev] Correction to RFC

[Christian Theune]

Hi,

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 20:34 +0100, Christian Theune wrote:
> Obviously I'm blind. I found the __traceback_info__ code a few lines
> down. 
> 
> Obviously they are used for slightly different things.
> 
> Obviously I'm going to investigate again, why the __traceback_info__
> elements don't appear.

I found out that simply there are two different types of ways to get a
view on a  traceback:

- The one the user sees. This one currently is a standard Python
traceback.

- The one you see in the error log. This includes all the shiny
formatting.

Is it intentional that there is a distinction? It took me quite a while
to actually notice that minore difference and come to the conclusion
that there are two different mechanisms used.

Christian

-- 
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/saale - germany
www.gocept.com - ct at gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20060127/15f84ec5/attachment.bin