On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 11:53, Jack Diederich wrote:
In 2.4 2.3 does it make sense to raise an exception that multiply inherits
from both TypeError and AttributeError? If anyone currently does catch the
error raising only AttributeError will break their code. 2.5 should just
raise an
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 11:53:31AM -0400, Jack Diederich wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 07:24:27PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 23:46, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've noticed an apparent inconsistency in the exception thrown for
read-only properties for C extension types vs.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 11:53, Jack Diederich wrote:
In 2.4 2.3 does it make sense to raise an exception that multiply
inherits from both TypeError and AttributeError? If anyone currently
does catch the error raising only AttributeError will break
In 2.4 2.3 does it make sense to raise an exception that multiply inherits
from both TypeError and AttributeError? If anyone currently does catch the
error raising only AttributeError will break their code. 2.5 should just
raise an AttributeError, of course.
I think that sets a bad
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 12:25, Aahz wrote:
Why is changing an exception more acceptable than creating a new one?
(I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I'd like some reasoning;
Jack's approach at least doesn't break code.) Especially if the new
exception isn't public (in the builtins
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 14:36, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Personally, I think it would be fine to just change the TypeError to
AttributeError. I expect that very few people would be hurt by that
change (they'd be building *way* too much specific arcane knowledge
into their program if they had code
Personally, I think it would be fine to just change the TypeError to
AttributeError. I expect that very few people would be hurt by that
change (they'd be building *way* too much specific arcane knowledge
into their program if they had code for which it mattered).
Unless there are any
On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 15:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
You meant 2.5 only of course. It's still a new feature and as such
can't be changed in 2.4.
Fair enough.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Python-Dev
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 23:46, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've noticed an apparent inconsistency in the exception thrown for
read-only properties for C extension types vs. Python new-style
classes.
I haven't seen any follow ups on this, so I've gone ahead and posted a
patch, assigning it to Raymond:
I've noticed an apparent inconsistency in the exception thrown for
read-only properties for C extension types vs. Python new-style
classes. I'm wondering if this is intentional, a bug, a bug worth
fixing, or whether I'm just missing something.
class other(object):
def __init__(self, value):
10 matches
Mail list logo
