[me] > Before we waste more time on this, let me explain why I like the rule > that all exception classes be derived from Exception. It's only a > vague liking, and maybe it's not worth making it a rule. I like it > because including Exception (or one of its well-known subclasses) in > the base class is a clue to the reader that a particular class > declaration is used as an exception. AFAIK this is the only reason > why Java has a similar rule; C++ does not, and lets you throw any > class. > > I can't see any implementation benefits from the requirement. It > sounds like you can't either -- or else you would have pointed them > out by now. So maybe we shouldn't bother with this rule, and then we > should take the recommendation out of the documentation. But I still > kind of like it, for the reason I explained in the previous paragraph. One other, more practical reason to like the rule: "except Exception:" would become equivalent to "except:". The advantage is that you can then write "except Exception, e:" and catch the exception instance in a local variable without having to call sys.exc_info(). --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