RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jun 23 09:29:38 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-June/140557.html

Hi,

2015-06-23 0:10 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
> Chiming in again since I wasn't clear on this aspect last time: I'd also be
> +1 on parallel APIs that handle the chaining.
>
> Since the auto-chaining idea seems largely unpopular, that suggests to me
> that a parallel set of APIs would be the most readily accepted way forward.
>
> I nominate a "*Chained" suffix as my suggested colour for the bikeshed :)

In the PEP, I proposed adding helpers in Alternatives, but I proposed
to add *private* APIs:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0490/#new-helpers-to-chain-exceptions

I would prefer to experiment these API during one cycle before making
them public.

Extending the public API has a cost on the maintenance, it's common to
add 1 or 2 versions of the same function which makes the public API
uglier and heavier to maintain (especially since we have the public
ABI).

Victor

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-June/140557.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 490: Chain exceptions at C level