Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> [Fred Drake]
> > I don't know if requiring class-based exceptions will make the
> > runtime any simpler, but that seems the only reason to do it.
>
> Do what? *Require* class exceptions? You're probably right, and I
> think the gain is minimal.
Yes. Besides, I still think that string-based exceptions are just
convenient for quick & dirty, throw-away test scripts.
>
> Let me repeat my plans for 1.6.
>
> - Remove -X; the standard exceptions are always class-based.
>
> - Change all standard library and other example code to use
> class-based exceptions with a standard exception as base class, to set
> an example.
>
> - Still allow string exceptions in user code.
>
> - Still allow class exceptions that don't use a standard exception
> base class in user code.
Sounds okay.
---
PS: I'm particularly happy today :-) because I've finally published
the new version of our Web site http://www.inrialpes.fr. Two things
I'd like to mention:
(1) it shouldn't have been possible without quick Python scripts ;)
(2) I'll find the time to reinvoke some of the topics discussed here
instead of being mute as a fish.
That said, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you!
--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252
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