On Mar 13, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Stockly, Ed wrote:
Yes, I see what you are doing here, but think of the cost.
EVERY call to a handler would have to be called from within a try block
that appends the handler name to the error message. This would make
the script almost unreadable.
I don't see what you're saying here. The only calls to handlers that would have to be in try blocks are the ones you want to track the source of the error.
In an earlier post, I said ...
This would be extremely useful to know this when an error occurs.
When a user reports a bug to me, I get the error number and message text,
but I have to tediously inquire about what was being done when the error
occurred so that I can identify where it occurred.
I am trying to identify errors encountered by USERS of a completed product.
I am not debugging a product in development.
Users can encounter errors in the strangest places.
And I would like to know the handler which is the source of the error
without having to guess from a bug report.
(That's why this information would be worth its weight in gold,)