Better error messages for known limitations

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I accidentally used a mixed tuple of size 3 in my program.  The shedskin 
compilation errors pointed to a variety of problems all over the code, with 
line numbers that didn't point to the problem at all.  It took a couple of 
hours to find the actual issue, as I hadn't remembered that this wasn't a 
supported language feature.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

It would be really really helpful if Shedskin detected when you did something 
that's just unsupported and said so.  Even if it couldn't give you the line 
number seeing "Hey, you can't use large mixed tuples!" would be enough.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Shedskin 0.5 on Linux.

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by uran...@gmail.com on 25 Sep 2010 at 4:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

thanks for the suggestion. I will think a bit about this, perhaps for 0.6.. I 
think it should be possible to add an extra warning here, as you suggest. it 
will be hard though to avoid having it appear when the problem doesn't 
originate in such a tuple mixing, but I agree that won't really hurt anyone..

Original comment by mark.duf...@gmail.com on 28 Sep 2010 at 9:59

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ah, I think I should fix the warnings first to point to the correct module and 
line number! :P that would make the problem obvious in this case. I will try to 
get this fixed for 0.6..

interestingly, the #{ .. #} feature screws up the line numbers.. 

Original comment by mark.duf...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 1:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

yup, this warning stuff has suffered from some bitrot over the years.. should 
be much better with 0.6 again. thanks for triggering!! 

Original comment by mark.duf...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 2:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

cleaned up. shedskin gives much clearer warnings for this case now, with 
correct module and linenumber information.. :-) I propose to close this issue. 

Original comment by mark.duf...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 6:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ah, so it was the #{?  The line numbers are always off for me, but it wasn't as 
simple as subtracting [or adding back in] the commented-out lines, so I wasn't 
sure.  Anyway, thanks for fixing it.

Original comment by uran...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 7:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by mark.duf...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2010 at 8:11

• Changed state: Fixed