> I'm not sure what the base class(es) actually buys us. We could just
> as well say by fiat that the interpreter will set the traceback
> attribute of an exception instance to the traceback. Why do we need a
> special base class to accomplish that? This is Python. You don't
> need to do isinstance(). You just need to see if it has the right
> attributes.
Fair enough, though having a common base class makes it easier to
augment the functionality -- every exception class would automatically
inherit any functionality provided by the base class.
But here's the real reason (which I brought up when we had this
discussion a few weeks ago but didn't remember completely last night):
once we reach the nirvana where all exceptions derive from Exception,
we can declare that
except:
is equivament to
except Exception:
and then, when we also store the traceback on the exception object, we
can (eventually) get rid of sys.exc_info().
> BTW, what is the signature for Exception.__init__()? I've written
> many exception classes, often subclasses of some other exception, but
> I've hardly ever paid attention to the superclass __init__(). It
> usually suffices to set the right attributes.
It's been a documented recommended practice to inherit from Exception
since the introduction of class exceptions. Why are you suddenly
fighting this?
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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