On 3/2/07, Andrew Dalke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This has given me another idea:
>...
> > Now, I'm not proposing that the raise statement should
> > actually have the above syntax -- that really would be
> > a step backwards. Instead it w
On 3/2/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has given me another idea:
...
> Now, I'm not proposing that the raise statement should
> actually have the above syntax -- that really would be
> a step backwards. Instead it would be required to have
> one of the following forms:
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why not just allow both exception classes and exception instances to be
> raised, and only instantiate-at-catch in the case of a raise of a class
> and a catch with an "as" clause?
Because that doesn't solve the problem of pre-instantiated
exceptions. What I'm proposing
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:00:53AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Now, I'm not proposing that the raise statement should
> actually have the above syntax -- that really would be
> a step backwards. Instead it would be required to have
> one of the following forms:
>
> raise ExceptionClass
>
> or
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> The instance contains all of the information about the details, such
> as the exact operation, the values and the context (including the
> traceback). It CAN'T be an object, because it is not 'assignable'
> (i.e. a value) - it is inherently bound to its context. You can
>
