Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: > > Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> writes: > > > > > Should it be arbitrary objects or just subclasses of exception: "It is > > > recommended that user-defined exceptions in new code be derived from > > > Exception, although for backward compatibility reasons, this is not > > > required. Eventually this rule will be tightened." > > [Martin] > > If that is the rule, the bug report can be closed as "not-a-bug". > > I seem to have a particularly dense day. :-( > > What does "that" (in "If that is the rule") refer back to? "user-defined exceptions be derived from Exception". It is only a recommendation in the sense that you can use arbitrary classic classes. If the rule is eventually tightened, it is ok if new-style classes are not allowed as exceptions right now. An action is only needed if you pronounce that it is desirable to allow new-style classes as exceptions - which would necessarily have a base class that is not derived from Exception. Regards, Martin
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