Fred Drake <fdrake <at> acm.org> writes: > > Sounds like adding a new method, catchException(...), that returns the > exception it catches, would be a reasonable compromise. I can't think > of any reason that the method that catches-and-returns needs to be the > existing API, which does something different. So you'd have a method that just catches (assertRaises), and another one that catches-and-returns (catchException)? It doesn't seem very practical to have two different methods based on such a small and trivial difference. Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems like it feels the need correctly.
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