On 9/21/2013 10:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Exceptions in __del__ point to bugs (sometimes in the stdlib) that
should be fixed, period. The only reason they do not result in
exceptions that are properly bubbled up and catchable is because __del__
is called from a DECREF macro which has no return value.

That is clear enough. What fooled me is the word 'ignored', in both the doc and message. How about 'skipped' (for technical reasons)?

That's a good point, although I'm not sure 'skipped' is better. Maybe use a more neutral verb like 'occurred'? 
">

(original) (raw)

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 9/21/2013 10:30 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Exceptions in \_\_del\_\_ point to bugs (sometimes in the stdlib) that
should be fixed, period. The only reason they do not result in
exceptions that are properly bubbled up and catchable is because \_\_del\_\_
is called from a DECREF macro which has no return value.

That is clear enough. What fooled me is the word 'ignored', in both the doc and message. How about 'skipped' (for technical reasons)?

That's a good point, although I'm not sure 'skipped' is better. Maybe use a more neutral verb like 'occurred'?

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)