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
10 matches
Mail list logo
