On 14 Jun 2012 at 15:01, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 06/14/2012 02:33 PM, Niall Douglas wrote: > > Do you think that this answer is worth adding to the BPL FAQ? > > Normally you don't need to derive from Python's Exception object, and > > indeed in my own custom exception implementations I never did so. > > However, if this has changed, an FAQ entry is appropriate. > > Python is certainly going in that direction. You used to be able to do > all kinds of crazy things such as using strings as exceptions but > current versions are much stricter about what you can raise. This is > what Python 2 says:
C++ is going in that direction too :) >From my own perspective, inheriting std::exception says that you comply with std::exception and you want your exceptions to be categorised as a std::exception. In my custom exception handling, I definitely did not want that as my exceptions could do fun stuff like aggregrate themselves when being multiply rethrown during destructor unwinds, something I still think C++11 gives up too easily upon. Maybe if I get my exception handling support into ISO C I might finally win that argument :) Now I vaguely remember something on this list about 3k needing to inherit from BaseException, and that broke BPL. I vaguely remember the solution Dave or somebody suggested was to wire in a BaseException inheritance on 3k only and not on 2k for backwards compatibility. I absolutely agree we need a policy in BPL which fixes this properly. Niall -- Technology & Consulting Services - ned Productions Limited. http://www.nedproductions.biz/. VAT reg: IE 9708311Q. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/ _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
