On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm surprised that nobody except Robert Brewer reacted to my proposal. The two > relevant bugs (#2507 and #2833) have been marked respectively as "critical" > and > "release blocker", so I thought at least some people felt concerned :-)
Flip side of the bikeshed effect. Nobody feels confident in their understanding so nobody comments. > Should I wait a bit for people to react and give a qualified opinion, or > should > I assume one of the following implicit answers (and if so, which one!): > > - we don't really care about re-raising, just fix #2507 the simple way so that > exception state is properly cleaned up > - we must fix both #2507 and #2833 in a clean way, and your proposal looks > fine > - we must fix both #2507 and #2833 in a clean way, but your proposal is > completely bogus I'd like if a bare "raise" became purely lexical (as Guido just suggested), ditching all the magic. However, things such as pdb.pm() still need access to the last exception. Maybe we can pare it down the bare minimum, a per-thread last_exception? That'd quickly get clobbered (we should intentionally clear when leaving an except block), but is that ever a problem? -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
