(original) (raw)

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> wrote:
\> For now the default value of the stacklevel parameter in warnings.warn() is
\> 1\. But in most cases stacklevel=2 is required, sometimes >2, and I don't
\> know cases that need stacklevel=1\. I propose to make the default value of
\> stacklevel to be 2\. I think that unlikely this will break existing code. But
\> rather can fix existing bugs. If stacklevel=1 is required (I don't know
\> cases), it can be explicitly specified.

+1

I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I've had to
explain how stacklevel= works to maintainers of widely-used packages
\-- they had no idea that this was even a thing they were getting
wrong.

OTOH I guess if there is anyone out there who's intentionally using
stacklevel=1 they might be reasonably surprised at this change. I
guess for some kinds of warnings stacklevel=2 is not obviously correct
\-- the one that comes to mind is "warning: the computer on the other
end of this network connection did something weird, continuing
anyway". OTOOH in this case I'm not sure stacklevel=1 is any better
either, since the thing being warned about has nothing to do with the
current call stack at all.