Even apart from the long time delay, it seems clear that the Django developers rejected 'raise from' for design reasons. That might be right or wrong as a decision, but it's a separate project from Python itself.
Nothing in the issue even hints that they would have accepted it *if only* the spelling were a few characters shorter. On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 12:43 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas < python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2020, at 06:32, Ram Rachum <r...@rachum.com> wrote: > > > It's possible that introducing the simpler `raise as` would increase > adoption and make users pay attention to the message between exception > tracebacks. > > > From the Django thread that you linked, when you asked whether they’d use > it, the reply was: > > Maybe... it's still more verbose for no gain as I see it. > > I think the default implicit chaining is correct in the default case. It's > only if you want to adjust that (or suppress is with `from None`) that the > extra clause comes in handy. I think using the default unless there's a > reason not to is, in general, a good policy. > > > And everyone else commenting on the thread seems to be agreeing with > Carlton. > > So it sounds like they’re probably not going to use the new syntax even if > you get this feature into Python. And that raises the question of who > _would_ use it. If this syntax is needed anywhere, it’s in a deep framework > that puts multiple levels of wrapping around complex things; Django seems > like the ideal use for it if anything is. > > And of course even if you did convince them, they wouldn’t start using it > for Django 3.0 or 3.1, which have to run on Python 3.6+ and can’t suddenly > start requiring a version of Python that’s not even in alpha yet. It looks > like it would probably be about 3 years after Python 3.9 or 3.10 (or > whenever you get this feature in) before you could change the next minor > Django version after that. (Unless you can convince them that this new > feature is not only worth using, but so compelling that it’s worth being > much more aggressive than usual in requiring the latest Python, which > doesn’t seem all that likely.) > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/S7JHJFV3Y4WA7MKLJZWMJIVQXQLY6OHV/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/KEC6QSFOPXIH4TTDHDQ6YVI2KQRSIQ46/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
