[Phillip J. Eby] > Okay. Maybe we should just update PEP 325, then? It has much of the stuff > that we'd want in the new PEP, such as the rationale. Your new proposal, > AFAICT, is just a simple extension of the PEP 325 protocol (i.e., adding > 'throw()'), along with some decisions to resolve its open issues. Even the > addition of 'throw()' seems tacitly approved by this bit at the end: > > """Were PEP 288 implemented, Exceptions Semantics for close could be > layered on top of it""" > > So at this point it seems your proposal is just nailing down specifics for > the open parts of PEP 325.
Or PEP 288? That has throw() (albeit with a different signature). I could do without the attributes though (PEP 342 provides a much better solution IMO). If either of those PEP authors feels like updating their PEP, they have my blessings! I probably won't get to writing my own for a few more days. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com