FYI: I opened a thread on Python-ideas where we continued the discussion on my `raise as` proposal, Shai's proposal, etc.: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-id...@python.org/thread/KM7NRNFZHALOBKJUXVYQL2SLDP3MAANW/
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:16 PM Ram Rachum <r...@rachum.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 12:23 PM Carlton Gibson <carlton.gib...@gmail.com> > 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/CANXboVZKMnnGFEGXdK7Yw0u8QAeiNCWH_n_%2BDqaFXbwKji5MOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
