Luke Arno wrote: > -1 to the proposed spec > > On 11/13/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> Other Possibilities >> ------------------- >> >> * You can just get the unwrapped application object and test it. > > +1, emphatically > > Let's encourage best practices, before we > standardize specific workarounds. > > The unwrapped version of the object should also be > made available for composition purposes, if it is > intended for such.
OK, then, you're going to have to justify that, because I don't think it's best practice ;) In particular, in many frameworks the presence of an exception catcher is automatic and largely opaque to the user. Of course it doesn't *have* to be opaque, but because this is the only case where it really matters I don't see why it shouldn't be opaque -- it's not worth explaining. It's not opaque to me, of course, and yet I never feel a need to unpack the object this way, because the one reason I might have is satisfied transparently, automatically, and reliably by this environment convention. Exception handling is something that is generally handled by some particular pieces of software -- the exception catcher and test frameworks. If they can agree on this, I don't see a reason anyone else needs to think about it. -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list [email protected] Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
