Mark Hammond wrote:
> I guess "too late" is purely a judgement call about breaking existing code.
> One thing to our advantage is that I believe the most common errno
> explicitly checked for will be ENOENT, which happily has the same value as
> ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND. [Actually, checking 2 *or* 3 (
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
> error code, so we could have defined both separately without
> confusion.
>
> Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
We could define a different exception, say, Win32Error which inherits
Guido:
> What a mess. :-(
>
> WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
> error code, so we could have defined both separately without
> confusion.
>
> Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
I guess "too late" is purely a judgement call about breaking existi
What a mess. :-(
WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
error code, so we could have defined both separately without
confusion.
Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
Unhelpfully,
--Guido
On 1/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ha
