[just ccing python-dev] On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Benjamin Peterson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I think that we should accept Antoine's patch and begin the twilight >>> years of sys.exc_info in favor of passing the exception instances >>> around. This makes for more explicit and less magical code. I don't >>> think there's any sys.exc_info case that can't be rewritten without >>> it. >> >> OK, assuming it works and doesn't break any unittests (or fixes the >> ones it expects to break), and has unittests for the new behavior, I'd >> say go for it. > > Excellent! > >> >>> I think the implicit chaining is assuming a little too much >>> about the needs of the program. >> >> That's why it's on a separate attribute. It can be handy to use when >> you need to debug an exception that happens in an exception handle. >> Sometimes it just helps to know why the handler was being invoked in >> the first place, other times you really want to know the original >> exception because that's the problem you're trying to track down. But >> I believe this is where Collin ran into a brick wall. I still think it >> could be implemented post beta 1. > > Ok. I will make an issue for it in the morning. > > Thanks for your pronouncements. > > > > -- > Cheers, > Benjamin Peterson > "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." >
-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." _______________________________________________ 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
