On 8/24/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/24/05, Michael Chermside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Explicit is better than Implicit. I think that in newly written code > > "except Exception:" is better (more explicit and easier to understand) > > than "except:" Legacy code that uses "except:" can remain unchanged *IF* > > the meaning of "except:" is unchanged... but I think we all agree that > > this is unwise because the existing meaning is a tempting trap for the > > unwary. So I don't see any advantage to keeping bare "except:" in the > > long run. What we do to ease the transition is a different question, > > but one more easily resolved. > > OK, I'm convinced. Let's drop bare except for Python 3.0, and > deprecate them until then, without changing the meaning. >
Woohoo! I am currently on vacation before school starts (orientation is Sept 1., classes start Sept. 6), so it might take me a little while to edit the PEP, but I will try to fit into my schedule ASAP (assuming the tide doesn't turn on me before then). > The deprecation message (to be generated by the compiler!) should > steer people in the direction of specifying one particular exception > (e.g. KeyError etc.) rather than Exception. Is there any desire for a __future__ statement that makes it a syntax error? How about making 'raise' statements only work with objects that inherit from BaseException? -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
