mark wrote: > AGAIN - I stress - catching "OSError" or "os.error" _will_ continue to > work, as WindowsError derives from OSError. It just worries me that people > will start explicitly catching "WindowsError", regardless of whatever > documentation we might write on the subject. > > Does anyone see this as a problem? I've seen bigger problems -- but I think it's a problem. any reason you cannot just use a plain OSError? is the extra "this is not a generic OSError" information bit actually used by anyone? </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4