On Monday 18 April 2005 05:17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will take this
> as a pronouncement and make the change at least in 2.5 and 2.4.
God no - this isn't suitable for a bugfix release. It seems fine for 2.5,
though.
--
Anthony Baxter <
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
Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 arc
> > 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
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 c
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 built
> 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 pre
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
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 ty
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 Att
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. Python new-style
> > classes.
>
> I haven't seen any follow ups
11 matches
Mail list logo
