On 8/24/05, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On 8/24/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 8/24/05, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I think it must be the case that raising an object which does not > >>> derive from an exception class must be deprecated as well in order > >>> for "except:" to be deprecated. Otherwise, there is nothing you can > >>> change "except:" to in order not to get a deprecation warning and > >>> still have your code be correct in the face of documented > >>> features of > >>> python. > >>> > >> > >> I agree; isn't that already in ther PEP? This surely has been the > >> thinking all along. > >> > >> > > > > Requiring inheritance of BaseException in order to pass it to 'raise' > > has been in the PEP since the beginning. > > Yes, it talks about that as a change that will happen in Python 3.0. > I was responding to > > >> OK, I'm convinced. Let's drop bare except for Python 3.0, and > >> deprecate them until then, without changing the meaning. > > which is talking about deprecating bare excepts in Python 2.5. Now > maybe it's the idea that everything that's slated for removal in > Python 3.0 by PEP 348 is supposed to be getting a deprecation warning > in Python 2.5, but that certainly isn't stated. The transition plan > section says that all that will happen in Python 2.5 is the addition > of "BaseException".
Then maybe the PEP isn't perfect just yet. :-) It's never too early to start deprecating a feature we know will disappear in 3.0. -- --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
