At 03:58 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>OK, I give up. I'm giving you a -1 on the test for a non-empty
>traceback without explaining it further.
Not a problem; I just wanted to make sure you were rejecting the same thing
that I was proposing. :) I've checked in the "your way" vers
OK, I give up. I'm giving you a -1 on the test for a non-empty
traceback without explaining it further.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
At 03:23 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>And I see no reason to complicate the code with an additional check
>that doesn't serve a purpose. The purpose of reminding people not to
>write g.throw("abc") seems artificial to me. I'd rather see less code,
>meaning less maintenance, and no n
On 3/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay - so allow them without warning or error, even if somebody does
> 'gen.throw("abc")'?
Correct. There's no current code that does this, and I doubt that few
people will write any, so I don't see the value of trying to trap or
warn for thi
At 03:06 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On 3/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 03:04 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > >The current state is that it always allows them, right?
> >
> > No. It doesn't allow them. Support for string exceptions was ne
On 3/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:04 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >The current state is that it always allows them, right?
>
> No. It doesn't allow them. Support for string exceptions was never
> actually implemented; I'm trying to implement it now.
O
At 03:04 PM 3/24/2006 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>The current state is that it always allows them, right?
No. It doesn't allow them. Support for string exceptions was never
actually implemented; I'm trying to implement it now.
___
Python-Dev mail
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
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
On 3/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should geniter.throw() issue a deprecation warning for string exceptions?
>
> My first thought was yes, since that's what raise() does.
>
> On the other hand, one of the key motivating uses for throw() is to allow
> exception propagation on a
Should geniter.throw() issue a deprecation warning for string exceptions?
My first thought was yes, since that's what raise() does.
On the other hand, one of the key motivating uses for throw() is to allow
exception propagation on a coroutine stack. In this use case, the original
"raise" of th
11 matches
Mail list logo
