Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!cs.uu.nl!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'warnings': 0.05; 'received:verizon.net': 0.07; 'subject:when': 0.07; 'suppress': 0.07; 'terry': 0.07; 'messing': 0.09; 'omit': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'runtime': 0.09; 'settings,': 0.09; 'reedy': 0.16; 'subject:builtin': 0.16; 'suppressed.': 0.16; 'warn': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; '>>>': 0.18; 'jan': 0.19; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'wonder': 0.23; 'checks,': 0.23; 'pm,': 0.24; 'messages.': 0.25; 'settings': 0.26; 'import': 0.28; 'module': 0.30; 'subject:?': 0.31; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.33; 'regardless': 0.34; 'done': 0.34; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.34; 'test': 0.34; 'things': 0.34; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.35; 'determine': 0.35; 'but': 0.37; 'could': 0.38; 'received:org': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'header:Mime- Version:1': 0.39; "there's": 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'cost': 0.65; 'grab': 0.66; 'generation.': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Why no warnings when re-assigning builtin names? Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:10:30 -0400 References: <4e49c89a$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4e49fcd7$0$29974$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <2A3EB048-1F10-46E8-973F-9BBD303E7B9F@semanchuk.com> <4E4A8F94.50706@stoneleaf.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-74-109-121-73.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1313547063 news.xs4all.nl 23884 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:36872 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:11648 On 8/16/2011 7:49 PM, Seebs wrote: > On 2011-08-16, Terry Reedy wrote: >> On 8/16/2011 2:56 PM, Seebs wrote: >>> I wonder whether there's a way to mitigate the cost of these things by >>> messing with -W settings, such that runtime that wants to be fast can >>> omit the checks, but the default could still be to, well, prevent likely >>> errors. > >> Warning messages have a cost even if suppressed. > > Yes, but is it a *significant* cost? My assumption is that the suppression > would be of checking, not just of displaying messages. The -W settings suppress display or printing of warnings, not their generation. import warnings if some_condition: warnings.warn(message, Warning) The test and warn call are made regardless of disposition. Filters determine what is done with each Warning subclass. The logging module can grab them too. -- Terry Jan Reedy