Guido van Rossum wrote: > [snip..] > The one thing that makes me not want to give up yet is that having the > traceback, context, cause etc. as attributes of the exception object > would seem to make the API for handling exceptions that much cleaner, > compared to having to call sys.exc_info() or even "except E as v with > tb". > > So, despite the existence of libraries that pre-create exceptions, how > bad would it really be if we declared that use unsafe? It wouldn't be > hard to add some kind of boobytrap that goes off when pre-created > exceptions are raised multiple times. If this had always been the > semantics I'm sure nobody would have complained and I doubt that it > would have been a common pitfall either (since if it doesn't work, > there's no bad code abusing it, and so there are no bad examples that > newbies could unwittingly emulate). > > Personally, I think the new attributes and the new syntax are *great* improvements to exception handling. I would be sad to see parts of these proposals not happen. Michael Foord
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