Guido van Rossum wrote: > Why don't you want it to mutate the instance? The recent repeat of the API discussion about list.sort() & list.reversed() (mutate instance & return None) vs sorted() and reversed() (return new instance).
I'm trying to see why mutating & returning self would be OK here, when it's not OK for a list to do the same thing. An alternate constructor as a class method ducks the question entirely. Cheers, Nick. > > On 2/10/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Collin Winter wrote: >> > I think so. I've already got language ready for the section on using >> > BaseException.with_traceback() in the 2->3 raise translations, and >> > I'll work up additional language for the transition plan sometime this >> > weekend. >> >> If with_traceback() is an instance method, does it mutate the existing >> exception or create a new one? >> >> To avoid any confusion, perhaps it should instead be a class method >> equivalent to the following: >> >> @classmethod >> def with_traceback(*args, **kwds): >> cls = args[0] >> tb = args[1] >> args = args[2:] >> exc = cls(*args, **kwds) >> exc.__traceback__ = tb >> return exc >> >> Usage would look like: >> >> raise E.with_traceback(T, V) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> >> -- >> Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> http://www.boredomandlaziness.org >> > > -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
