Collin Winter wrote:
> I think so. I've already got language ready for the section on using
> BaseException.with_traceback() in the 2->3 raise translations, and
> I'll work up additional language for the transition plan sometime this
> weekend.
If with_traceback() is an instance method, does it mu
At 10:52 PM 2/9/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
>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}
>> > > at
Why don't you want it to mutate the instance?
On 2/10/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collin Winter wrote:
> > I think so. I've already got language ready for the section on using
> > BaseException.with_traceback() in the 2->3 raise translations, and
> > I'll work up additional langu
WFM.
On 2/10/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:52 PM 2/9/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
> >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_i
On 2/10/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collin Winter wrote:
> > I think so. I've already got language ready for the section on using
> > BaseException.with_traceback() in the 2->3 raise translations, and
> > I'll work up additional language for the transition plan sometime this
> > w
On 2/10/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WFM.
>
Wow, I think that is the shortest way you can OK an idea, Guido,
without just leaving off the period. =)
And for what it's worth, I'm +1 on adding default args and passing a
single argument in Py3K and all three in 2.6 as well.
-B
On 2/10/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:52 PM 2/9/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
> >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()
Collin Winter wrote:
> On 2/10/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My thought is, 2.6 would pass all three arguments, 3.0 just one.
>
> My only concern was that keeping the three-argument signature means
> one less thing to change when transitioning to 3.0. Anyone really
> concerned a
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Why don't you want it to mutate the instance?
The recent repeat of the API discussion about list.sort() &
list.reversed() (mutate instance & return None) vs sorted() and
reversed() (return new instance).
I'm trying to see why mutating & returning self would be OK here,
Somehow it seems that exceptions keep getting permission to violate
the rules... (E.g. the insistence on a fixed base class is also
considered unpythonic in other contexts.) Maybe it's because they're
"exceptions" ? :-)
Anyway, I believe there's a use case for re-raising an existing
exception with
On 1/29/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was more generally wondering what the plan was for transitioning any
> C API changes (if we were even going to do that level of transition).
It's too early for much of a plan IMO. I'm not making radical changes
(yet) but I'm mercilessly delet
11 matches
Mail list logo
