The raise- and except-related PEPs from this discussion have been
committed as PEP 3109 and PEP 3110, respectively.
Thanks, everyone!
Collin Winter
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
U
Collin Winter schrieb:
> The raise- and except-related PEPs from this discussion have been
> committed as PEP 3109 and PEP 3110, respectively.
One question: will there be an exception keyword argument to set the
traceback, to simplify
e = Error(V)
e.__traceback__ = tb
raise e
to
raise Error(V,
I agree that this API is better. If it's not in PEP 344 it should be added.
On 2/9/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collin Winter schrieb:
> > The raise- and except-related PEPs from this discussion have been
> > committed as PEP 3109 and PEP 3110, respectively.
>
> One question: will
> On 2/9/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One question: will there be an exception keyword argument to set the
> > traceback, to simplify
> >
> > e = Error(V)
> > e.__traceback__ = tb
> > raise e
> >
> > to
> >
> > raise Error(V, traceback=tb)
> >
> > I remember this being proposed,
On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/9/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One question: will there be an exception keyword argument to set the
> > > traceback, to simplify
> > >
> > > e = Error(V)
> > > e.__traceback__ = tb
> > > raise e
> > >
> > > to
> > >
>
At 02:57 PM 2/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree that this API is better. If it's not in PEP 344 it should be
> added.
> >
> > Should this be added to PEP 344 or 3109? That is, do you want to see
> > it before Python 3?
>
On 2/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:57 PM 2/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I agree that this API is better. If it's not in PEP 344 it should be
> > added.
> > >
> > > Should this be added to PEP 344
Collin Winter wrote:
> I believe the original proposal was something like
>
> raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
Does this mean you're not intending to have any syntactic
variant of the raise statement that includes a traceback
in 3.0? Or is this just so that forward-compatible code
can be written in
On 2/9/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collin Winter wrote:
>
> > I believe the original proposal was something like
> >
> > raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
>
> Does this mean you're not intending to have any syntactic
> variant of the raise statement that includes a traceback
> in 3.0? Or
At 01:33 PM 2/10/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Collin Winter wrote:
>
> > I believe the original proposal was something like
> >
> > raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
>
>Does this mean you're not intending to have any syntactic
>variant of the raise statement that includes a traceback
>in 3.0?
That *i
On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sys.exc_info() will be kept, while the sys.exc_{type,value,traceback}
> attributes will be dropped.
I understand why, but that doesn't make me uncomfortable with keeping
it. Maybe in "3.0 compatibility mode" 2.6 could attach tracebacks to
excep
On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Collin Winter wrote:
> >
> > > I believe the original proposal was something like
> > >
> > > raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
> >
> > Does this mean you're not intending to have any syntactic
On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sys.exc_info() will be kept, while the sys.exc_{type,value,traceback}
> > attributes will be dropped.
>
> I understand why, but that doesn't make me uncomfortable with keeping
(of cours
On 2/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:33 PM 2/10/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >Collin Winter wrote:
> >
> > > I believe the original proposal was something like
> > >
> > > raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
> >
> >Does this mean you're not intending to have any syntactic
> >var
On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sys.exc_info() will be kept, while the sys.exc_{type,value,traceback}
> > attributes will be dropped.
>
> I understand why, but that doesn't make me comfortable with keeping
> it. Maybe
On 2/9/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 01:33 PM 2/10/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > >Collin Winter wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe the original proposal was something like
> > > >
> > > > raise E(V).with_traceback(T)
>
At 05:03 PM 2/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sys.exc_info() will be kept, while the sys.exc_{type,value,traceback}
> > attributes will be dropped.
>
>I understand why, but that doesn't make me uncomfortable with keeping
>it. Maybe in "
On 2/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:03 PM 2/9/2007 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >On 2/9/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > sys.exc_info() will be kept, while the sys.exc_{type,value,traceback}
> > > attributes will be dropped.
> >
> >I understand why, bu
18 matches
Mail list logo
