Maybe... it's still more verbose for no gain as I see it. I think the default implicit chaining is correct in the default case. It's only if you want to adjust that (or suppress is with `from None`) that the extra clause comes in handy. I think using the default unless there's a reason not to is, in general, a good policy.
I know I'm -1 on this particular change, for the reasons in this thread, but thank you for your efforts nonetheless. :) Kind Regards, Carlton On Friday, 7 February 2020 12:17:11 UTC+1, Ram Rachum wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:23 PM Carlton Gibson <carlto...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > I'm basing it on the fact that Carlton approved this PR for the style >> guide: https://github.com/django/django/pull/12350 >> >> No. I don't think we should merge that change. (It's "approved" qua >> itself before reviewing, and dependent on the main PR.) >> >> To be clear. I think the default implicit chaining should be used unless >> there's specific reason not to. >> >> (In hindsight I should have come to this conclusion before agreeing to >> the original smaller cleanup.) >> >> C. >> > > I understand. Hypothetical question: If the syntax was `raise as > NewException`, without having to give the old exception a name, would that > change your decision? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0bef0533-553c-41a4-b11a-4346dcc17c83%40googlegroups.com.
