barry@zope.com (Barry A. Warsaw) writes: > Can you explain why you think the rule should be so strict? I don't > see a problem with using multiple inheritance to satisfy the "must > derive" rule. The question is, whether, given class Base:pass class MyExc(Base, Exception):pass it would be valid to write try: foo() # raises MyExc except Base: pass If that ought to be allowed, I fail to see the rationale to require that exceptions be derived from Exception: The rationale could be "all exceptions are primarily instances of Exception" - yet in this case, Base is the primary class, and Exception is just a mix-in that plays no further role in this case of exception handling. If you want to allow Base in the except clause, but do allow Base as the base class of MyExc, I'd be curious what run-time semantics you'd associate with this example. 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