On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Actually I think we won't need that function once we're used to just
passing exception instances around.
Ah, so many differences that I've lost track of. I feel so...
py2k. :-(
-Fred
--
Fred Drake
___
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On May 31, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
This reminds me
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On May 31, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
>>>
>>> This reminds me of something I've thought a few times - maybe the tuple
>>> returned from sys.exc_
Collin Winter gmail.com> writes:
>
> See PEP 3109: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3109/
By the way, this document mentions a "raise ... from ..." form, but it doesn't
seem to me it has been implemented. Perhaps the document should be corrected?
Also, it doesn't mention the with_traceback()
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 31, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
>>
>> This reminds me of something I've thought a few times - maybe the tuple
>> returned from sys.exc_info() should be a named tuple.
>
> +1
It should be replaced with a functio
On May 31, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
This reminds me of something I've thought a few times - maybe the
tuple returned from sys.exc_info() should be a named tuple.
+1
-Fred
--
Fred Drake
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antoine:
>> Mark Hammond skippinet.com.au> writes:
>> > In both Python 2.x and 3 (a few months old build of Py3k though), the
>> > traceback isn't the same. For Python 2.0 you could write it like:
>> >
>> > def handle_exce
Antoine:
> Mark Hammond skippinet.com.au> writes:
> > In both Python 2.x and 3 (a few months old build of Py3k though), the
> > traceback isn't the same. For Python 2.0 you could write it like:
> >
> > def handle_exception():
> > ...
> > raise sys.exc_info()[0], sys.exc_info()[1], sys.exc_inf
Hello again,
> Why not move f_exc_* into the PyTryBlock struct? We can eliminate the
> per-thread exception and have sys.exc_info() search the stack for an
> active except block. No need to swap anything because the stack is
> always current.
Yes it's a possible implementation. At the expense
Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sys.exc_info() will remain, it's just that the returned value will be
(None, None, None) if we are not in an except block in any of the
currently active frames in the thread. In the case above it would
return the current exception (the one caught in one
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> The bytecode generation for "raise" could be changed literally be the
>> same as "except Foo as e: raise e". Reuse our existing stack, not add
>> another one.
>
> As someone else point
Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
>
> The bytecode generation for "raise" could be changed literally be the
> same as "except Foo as e: raise e". Reuse our existing stack, not add
> another one.
As someone else pointed, there is a difference between the two constructs: the
latter appends a line to
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
>> > By the way, another interesting sys.exc_info() case:
>> >
>> > def except_yield():
>> >try:
>> >raise TypeError
>> >except:
>> >yield 1
>> >
>> > def f():
>> >
Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
> > By the way, another interesting sys.exc_info() case:
> >
> > def except_yield():
> >try:
> >raise TypeError
> >except:
> >yield 1
> >
> > def f():
> >for i in except_yield():
> >return sys.exc_info()
> >
> > Right now, running f
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Hammond skippinet.com.au> writes:
>> In both Python 2.x and 3 (a few months old build of Py3k though), the
>> traceback isn't the same. For Python 2.0 you could write it like:
>>
>> def handle_exception():
>> ...
>>
Mark Hammond skippinet.com.au> writes:
> In both Python 2.x and 3 (a few months old build of Py3k though), the
> traceback isn't the same. For Python 2.0 you could write it like:
>
> def handle_exception():
> ...
> raise sys.exc_info()[0], sys.exc_info()[1], sys.exc_info()[2]
>
> Its not cl
17 matches
Mail list logo
