On 8/5/05, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/4/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This does contradict my earlier claim that Python itself doesn't use > > RuntimeError; I think I'd be happier if it remained RuntimeError. (I > > think there are a few more uses of it inside Python itself; I don't > > think it's worth inventing new exceptions for all these.) > > > > I just realized that keeping RuntimeError still does not resolve the > issue that the name kind of sucks for realizing intrinsically that it > is for quick-and-dirty exceptions (or am I the only one who thinks > this?). Should we toss in a subclass called SimpleError?
I don't think so. People should feel free to use whatever pre-existing exception they like, even Exception. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
