On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems
>> >> like it feels the need correctly.
>> >
>> > and I meant "fills", not "feels", obviously...
>>
>> +1 : enriching the existing method in a way that
> >> Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems
> >> like it feels the need correctly.
> >
> > and I meant "fills", not "feels", obviously...
>
> +1 : enriching the existing method in a way that's perfectly
> transparent and innocuous to all existing uses _feels_ right, b
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I said:
>> Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems like it
>> feels the need correctly.
>
> and I meant "fills", not "feels", obviously...
+1 : enriching the existing method in a way that's
I said:
> Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems like it
> feels the need correctly.
and I meant "fills", not "feels", obviously...
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
Fred Drake acm.org> writes:
>
> Sounds like adding a new method, catchException(...), that returns the
> exception it catches, would be a reasonable compromise. I can't think
> of any reason that the method that catches-and-returns needs to be the
> existing API, which does something diffe
