Greg Ewing: > Also while we're at it, how about storing the traceback in the > exception object, and getting rid of sys.exc_info() etc.? Guido: > That's a good idea, and I'd support a PEP on that topic more than PEP > 317 (which IMO is unnecessary). IMO the biggest advantage of PEP 317 is not what it does directly but the future enhancements it allows. If all exceptions really are objects, (particularly if strengthened to say "instances of Exception or subclasses") then we can add new features to Exception. Moving the traceback into the object is one idea. Making Exception a new-style object is another (no need to rush, but it'll happen SOMEDAY, right?). Exception chaining (aka exception masking) is another. The point is, without PEP 317, you can't do these things, because sometimes you use an object, and sometimes just mention a class (and sometimes just use a string). PEP 317 choose not to try to bite off anything bigger than fixing this so future enhancements would be possible. But we EVER want these kinds of enhancements, then start a PEP 317 style migration NOW, because degree of code breakage means that the migration time will be really slow. Deprecating (ideally with warnings) sooner is better. -- Michael Chermside
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