Barry Warsaw wrote: > The PEP doesn’t really go into the rationale for why a new exception is being > defined, > and in the issue I’ve argued that we should just raise SyntaxError in those > cases. To me, > “TargetScopeError” is pretty obscure and doesn’t give users an obvious clue > as to what’s > going wrong, without searching the interwebs.
Barry Warsaw wrote: > Serhiy points out that we have IndentationError and TabError subclasses of > SyntaxError, > but those feel different to me because the exception names themselves are > clear and > descriptive, and lead to obvious actionable remedies. I find myself in agreement that SyntaxError should be raised for the above reasons, as long as the error message can adequately explain to the user that it's an issue with the scope they're referring to: ``SyntaxError: Invalid scope defined by walrus operator: 'i := 10 for i in range(5)'`` To make it a bit more more succinct, "by walrus operator" could be potentially removed. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the users looking up the name of the exception for more information, but it should not be required to gain a basic understanding of what the error is referring to. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this would be a frequent enough occurrence to justify creating a subclass of SyntaxError instead of simply using a custom message to describe the issue. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZE3JNHAW46QCOAYQRNKYUABFK5YEJCZH/
