Skip to content

Conversation

@pfitzseb
Copy link
Member

@pfitzseb pfitzseb commented Aug 4, 2017

also better rendering of constructors in backtraces.

Before:
image

After:
image

Fixes JunoLab/atom-julia-client#374.

also better rendering of constructors in bt
@MikeInnes
Copy link
Member

The current is a better default. Most users are not going to be working on base code, so the user code should come up first.

@pfitzseb
Copy link
Member Author

pfitzseb commented Aug 4, 2017

Hm, fair enough. But there's merit to following Base's/the REPL's way of doing things as well:

julia> f(0,0)
ERROR: ArgumentError: invalid rational: zero(Int64)//zero(Int64)
Stacktrace:
 [1] Rational{Int64}(::Int64, ::Int64) at ./rational.jl:13
 [2] f(::Int64, ::Int64) at ./REPL[3]:1

The reasons for that (you only see the bottom part of long backtraces) are obviously not applicable to Juno, so yeah... Not sure if I really care about this enough to find reasons for one or the other :D

@pfitzseb pfitzseb merged commit ad2c430 into master Aug 16, 2017
@pfitzseb pfitzseb deleted the sp/reversebt branch October 20, 2017 08:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants