On 3/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:36 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >I think it's overkill to warn for any string exceptions thrown this > >way. Since the only use case for using throw() is to pass an exception > >you just caught, I don't see that putting the warning is useful -- > >it's just more code that in practice is never triggered. > > My proposal was that throw() should only succeed or fail, never warn. > > If you throw() a string exception with a traceback, it Just Works. > > If you throw() a string exception without a traceback, you get an immediate > TypeError, just like in the 2.5 trunk now. > > Is that acceptable? i.e., was that what you were "-0"-ing?
Actually that's slightly worse; I'm not sure we guarantee that exceptions you catch *always* have a traceback object associated with them. So -1. > The only change is that throw() would now *accept* string exceptions > without warning or error, if and only if you supply a traceback. That is, > if you are effectively re-raising an existing exception. The current state is that it always allows them, right? I don't see a reason to change that, and I don't think you've made a strong argument for changing it -- I don't think the use case matters. -- --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
