Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > That's not what's proposed. The core and other users would
> > use classes derived from Error to raise errors. Other users
> > could even just Error itself. Exception is reserved for
> > exceptions that don't and shouldn't derive from Error.
>
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3;
>
> Note that 'error' is a vague term for which you have a specific
> meaning in mind here; be sure to give that definition where it's
> important.
How 'bout something like, "an exception r
RFC 88 is discussing making errors into exceptions. I strongly
don't think we should attempt the converse, that is, making
exceptions into errors.
"An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3;
That's why RFC 88 defines both Exception and Error classes, the
latter of which inherits from
At 08:01 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>RFC 88 is discussing making errors into exceptions. I strongly
>don't think we should attempt the converse, that is, making
>exceptions into errors.
>
> "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3;
Note that 'error' is a vague term for wh
At 09:40 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > >
> > > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3;
> >
> > Note that 'error' is a vague term for which you have a specific
> > meaning in mind here; be sure to give that definition where
