> From: Guido van Rossum [mailto:guido@python.org]
>=20
> OTOH there's something to say for fewer errors, not more;
> e.g. sometimes I wish AttributeError and TypeError were unified,
> because AttributeError usually means that an object isn't of the
> expected type.
Hmm ... I was going to ask if there was any reason not to make =
AttributeError a subclass of TypeError, but that would mean that code =
like:
try:
...
except TypeError:
...
would also catch all AttributeErrors.
Maybe we should have a __future__ directive and phase it in starting in =
2.4?
I wouldn't suggest making AttributeError and TypeError be synonyms =
though ... I think it is useful to distinguish the situations.
I can't think of any case in *my* code where I would want to distinguish =
between a TypeError and an AttributeError - usually I end up having:
try:
...
except (TypeError, AttributeError):
...
Tim Delaney
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