RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 5 22:28:36 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055175.html

On 8/5/05, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This does contradict my earlier claim that Python itself doesn't use
> > RuntimeError; I think I'd be happier if it remained RuntimeError. (I
> > think there are a few more uses of it inside Python itself; I don't
> > think it's worth inventing new exceptions for all these.)
> >
> 
> I just realized that keeping RuntimeError still does not resolve the
> issue that the name kind of sucks for realizing intrinsically that it
> is for quick-and-dirty exceptions (or am I the only one who thinks
> this?).  Should we toss in a subclass called SimpleError?

I don't think so. People should feel free to use whatever pre-existing
exception they like, even Exception.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055175.html below:

[Python-Dev] Exception Reorg PEP checked in