|
00:38
deoac joined
00:42
jargan is now known as jast
00:51
sourceable6__ left,
sourceable6 joined
01:19
kst joined
02:27
hulk joined
02:28
kylese left
03:13
patrickb left,
patrickb joined
03:15
hulk left,
kylese joined
04:33
hvxgr left,
hvxgr joined
05:10
ugexe left,
ugexe joined
05:12
peder left
05:14
peder joined
05:17
Aedil joined
05:39
sibl joined
06:32
jedesa joined,
jedesa left
07:32
cryosis left
07:50
Aedil left
07:53
Sgeo left
10:14
linkable6 left
10:15
linkable6 joined
10:42
unicodable6 left,
unicodable6 joined
11:04
[Coke] left,
[Coke] joined
11:47
inspork left
11:48
inspork_ joined,
inspork_ is now known as inspork
|
|||
| lizmat | . | 12:12 | |
|
12:23
Guest61 joined
12:24
Guest61 left
12:30
cryosis joined
12:35
jcallen left
12:36
jcallen joined
13:56
sibl left
|
|||
| lizmat | weekly: dev.to/lizmat/raku-resolutions-3-3j6m | 14:25 | |
| notable6 | lizmat, Noted! (weekly) | ||
|
14:31
elcaro left,
elcaro joined
14:50
ShimmerFairy left,
ShimmerFairy joined
14:51
hulk joined
14:53
kylese left
15:30
xinming left
15:32
xinming joined,
Aedil joined
|
|||
| [Coke] | oh, that was yesterday?! oops. :( | 15:46 | |
| I do not have a great track record here. | |||
|
16:15
[Coke] left
16:45
Sgeo joined
17:34
lucs left
|
|||
| SmokeMachine | Instead of :no-backtrace, would it make more sense to be :!backtrace? | 17:48 | |
|
17:52
wayland joined,
wayland76 left
|
|||
| ugexe | that stuck out to me as well, but ultimately i don't like the parameter idea since it also doesn't do anything if you pass an exception object | 17:53 | |
| lizmat | well, the problem solving issue was about: die "foo" | 17:55 | |
| I mean, could make it with an exception as well, but that would be outside of the scope of the issue | 17:56 | ||
| ugexe | yeah i understand that. however that doesn't mean any solution shouldn't consider things hollistically | ||
| lizmat | the :!backtrace I can work with :-) | ||
| ugexe | i was ok with the parameter on first glance, but now im not. i think the new exception object, while not ideal either, would be a more consistent / comprehendable api | 17:57 | |
| by not ok with it i mean its not something i would suggest or implement. not that i would reject the PR | 17:58 | ||
| more generally though i'm trying to think as a library author, and if i should be on control of when consumers of my library get a backtrace | 18:01 | ||
| so in some sense i feel like the ultimate end consumer of the library should be determining when backtraces get printed | 18:03 | ||
| lizmat | so, what I was going for was a CATCHable alternative to: note "foo"; exit 1 | ||
| ugexe | right but then a consumer has to know they need to catch those types of exceptions if they want backtraces for those pieces of code | 18:08 | |
|
18:09
[Coke] joined
|
|||
| ugexe | as an end user writing scripts i can understanding wanting `die` to not include stack traces sometimes (probably most of the time). as a library consumer i don't want the library author to control when i can get backtraces without explicitly asking for them (and thus knowing i need to in the first place). these two use cases are in conflict | 18:10 | |
| lizmat | hmmm... changing :$no-backtrace to :$backtrace appears to trigger some infiniloop :-( | 18:34 | |
|
18:39
lucs joined
|
|||
| ugexe | presumably you have some clash with the backtrace method | 18:39 | |
| m: say X::AdHoc.new.backtrace | |||
| camelia | Nil | 18:40 | |
|
18:41
lucs left
|
|||
| ugexe | the pre-existence of the backtrace method also suggests these parameter names arent good | 18:42 | |
| the backtrace still exist | |||
| so having a flag on x::adhoc to not have a backtrace really means to not "print" a backtrace | 18:43 | ||
| this is confusing | |||
| i guess in that PR it does actually remove the backtrace. i don't think that is the correct thing to do | 18:48 | ||
| the backtrace should always be on the exception object. the use case that was asked is only about not printing the backtrace | 18:49 | ||
| lizmat | the problem is that it's very hard to stop the backtrace from being generated without a SORRY | ||
| it's quite a bit of a mess there... ;-( | |||
| ugexe | it is possible that it is too hard to DTRT. if that is the case i'm not sure we'd want to sort-of DTRT instead vs what we have now which does allow this behavior with slightly added verbosity | 18:51 | |
| For this parameter route I think at a minimum it needs to 1) be renamed to like `print-backtrace` or some such, and 2) the backtrace stays on the exception object. That being said I'm still not sure how acceptable I personally find that | 18:55 | ||
| lizmat | ok, not going to touch the PR for a while :-) | 19:00 | |
|
19:05
lucs joined
|
|||
| lizmat | for our friends on Discord: www.therage.co/persona-age-verification/ | 20:12 | |
|
20:31
Aedil left
21:45
wayland left
22:20
El_Che left
22:21
El_Che joined
|
|||