Make traceback functions support negative limits

[vaultah]

BPO	22974
Nosy	@bitdancer, @demianbrecht, @vaultah
Superseder	bpo-22619: Possible implementation of negative limit for traceback functions

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2014-12-02.04:49:55.102>
created_at = <Date 2014-12-01.15:59:28.548>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'Make traceback functions support negative limits'
updated_at = <Date 2014-12-02.04:55:59.210>
user = 'https://github.com/vaultah'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2014-12-02.04:55:59.210>
actor = 'berker.peksag'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2014-12-02.04:49:55.102>
closer = 'vaultah'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2014-12-01.15:59:28.548>
creator = 'vaultah'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 22974
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['231943', '231945', '231950', '231962']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['r.david.murray', 'demian.brecht', 'vaultah']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'duplicate'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = '22619'
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue22974'
versions = ['Python 3.5']

[vaultah]

This is a complete implementation of negative limits for functions from traceback module (see this proposal - https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-August/029105.html). I also added some tests.

[bitdancer]

This looks like a duplicate of bpo-22619. Were you under the impression you needed to open a new issue just in order to update your patch? You would be better off posting the patch to bpo-22619 and closing this one, unless I'm missing something.

[vaultah]

Indeed, this is an exact duplicate, but I feel like that issue is an embarrassment: too many unnecessary actions, bad patches, and most of messages are totally useless. I wanted to start over for once, so I closed that issue. Pardon my initial ignorance.

[demianbrecht]

It's generally better to keep everything in one issue in order to preserve history and avoid confusion as you've now found :). I'd suggest closing this one and adding the patch to the initial report. Keeping history intact is important for reviewers.

Absolutely no need for embarrassment, we all start somewhere and have to learn processes and such along the way :)