Quoth Guido van Rossum: [...] > I've never considered the two alternative raise syntaxes as a wart in > the language that's important enough to fix. The predicted migration > pain seems excessive compared to the importance of the improvement. Gotcha. And, in case there's any doubt, I certainly agree that such an objection is more than adequate reason to reject a PEP, and that I haven't adequately met the objection (yet... he said hopefully). > The only case I'm willing to impose excessive migration pain to fix a > problem is when the problem is *really* unacceptable in the long run. > I've decided that's the case for int division, for the difference > between int and long, and for new-style vs. classic classes. > > I don't see raise C vs. raise C() to be in the same category. I entirely agree that it isn't. -- Steven Taschuk staschuk@telusplanet.net "Telekinesis would be worth patenting." -- James Gleick
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