What a mess. :-(
WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
error code, so we could have defined both separately without
confusion.
Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
Unhelpfully,
--Guido
On 1/30/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a
Guido:
What a mess. :-(
WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
error code, so we could have defined both separately without
confusion.
Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
I guess too late is purely a judgement call about breaking existing code.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
WindowsError should have used a different name for the Windows-native
error code, so we could have defined both separately without
confusion.
Is it too late to change WindowsError in that way?
We could define a different exception, say, Win32Error which inherits
from
Mark Hammond wrote:
I guess too late is purely a judgement call about breaking existing code.
One thing to our advantage is that I believe the most common errno
explicitly checked for will be ENOENT, which happily has the same value as
ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND. [Actually, checking 2 *or* 3
