(2013/02/21 8:50), Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:36 AM, SASADA Koichi <ko1 / atdot.net> wrote:
>> I want to agree with you. But I feel there are worries.
> 
> How about #backtrace/#set_backtrace and
> #backtrace_locations/#set_backtrace_locations are completely
> *separate* representations of the backtrace? That preserves backward
> compatibility while providing a path forward to the more structured
> backtrace form. I think it's reasonable to expect that the
> unstructured backtrace form doesn't update or break the structured
> form.

I think it is reasonable.

(3) Separate Exception#bactrace and Exception#backtrace_locations
  Problems:
  (3-p1) which should output as an error backtrace when interpreter dies.
  (3-p2) may introduce confusion?

Other comments and ideas are welcome.

-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net