Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 06:43 PM 1/21/2007 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: >But when something as obvious as moving >the traceback to exceptions presents itself and it means that another >way becomes antiquated we should take the chance to ditch the old way >so we don't have this weird situation of supporting both and old w

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Jim Jewett
On 1/22/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:43 PM 1/21/2007 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: > >But when something as obvious as moving > >the traceback to exceptions ... should take the chance to ditch the old way > How will this affect the __exit__ signature for context managers, whi

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 10:44 AM 1/22/2007 -0500, Jim Jewett wrote: >On 1/22/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>At 06:43 PM 1/21/2007 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >But when something as obvious as moving >> >the traceback to exceptions ... should take the chance to ditch the old way > >>How will this affe

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Brett Cannon
On 1/22/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/22/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 06:43 PM 1/21/2007 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >But when something as obvious as moving > > >the traceback to exceptions ... should take the chance to ditch the old way > > > How will

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Collin Winter
On 1/22/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:43 PM 1/21/2007 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote: > >But when something as obvious as moving > >the traceback to exceptions presents itself and it means that another > >way becomes antiquated we should take the chance to ditch the old way > >so

[Python-3000] simplifying the exception mechanism

2007-01-22 Thread tomer filiba
with all the talk about enhancing exceptions and removing unnecessary functions from the codebase, i think we can also drop PyErr_NormalizeException and friends. after all, since string exceptions are out, BDFL has mentioned he prefered "raise Foo()" instead of "raise Foo" [1], and since the trace

Re: [Python-3000] simplifying the exception mechanism

2007-01-22 Thread Collin Winter
On 1/22/07, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > with all the talk about enhancing exceptions and removing unnecessary > functions from the codebase, i think we can also drop > PyErr_NormalizeException and friends. One argument in favor of keeping PyErr_NormalizeException() (as I've learned f

[Python-3000] Pre-peps on raise and except changes (was: Warning for 2.6 and greater)

2007-01-22 Thread Collin Winter
On 1/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/12/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's worth spending time thinking about how we can help ease the > transition for each. There may be more thing too. I wonder if it > doesn't make sense for all 3xxx PEPs to include a dis

Re: [Python-3000] simplifying the exception mechanism

2007-01-22 Thread Brett Cannon
On 1/22/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/22/07, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > with all the talk about enhancing exceptions and removing unnecessary > > functions from the codebase, i think we can also drop > > PyErr_NormalizeException and friends. > > One argument i

Re: [Python-3000] Pre-peps on raise and except changes (was: Warning for 2.6 and greater)

2007-01-22 Thread Brett Cannon
On 1/22/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/12/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's worth spending time thinking about how we can help ease the > > > transition for each. There may be more thing too. I won

Re: [Python-3000] Pre-peps on raise and except changes (was: Warning for 2.6 and greater)

2007-01-22 Thread Collin Winter
On 1/22/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For the exception PEP: "In addition, Python 3 will introduce a further incompatibility." You have not even mentioned a Py3K incompatibility yet so this statement is awkward. This sentence has been cut. "This PEP intends to resolve this issu

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 03:10 PM 1/22/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote: >Is there a reason why these API could not be defined in terms of a >single exception object? In Python 3, all the information from a >sys.exc_info() tuple available from an exception instance: (type(e), >e, e.__traceback__) > >As for documentation

Re: [Python-3000] Pre-peps on raise and except changes (was: Warning for 2.6 and greater)

2007-01-22 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 04:45 PM 1/22/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote: >On 1/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 1/12/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > It's worth spending time thinking about how we can help ease the >> > transition for each. There may be more thing too. I wonder if i

Re: [Python-3000] Exceptions internals and removing sys.exc_*

2007-01-22 Thread Terry Reedy
"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Um, you're not taking 2.6 into consideration here. Remember that there has | to be a way to spell all these APIs in 2.6 that will still work in 3.0. | IMO, this seems sufficient reason to keep sys.exc_info() around,