MAL> I don't see a need for two or more syntaxes either, but most code
MAL> nowadays uses the second variant (I don't know of any code that
MAL> uses the traceback argument), which puts up a high barrier for
MAL> changes.
Earlier this week I managed to fix all the instances in the
Marc-Andre Lemburg writes:
> This is from a comment in ceval.c:
>
> /* We support the following forms of raise:
> raise ,
> raise ,
> raise , None
> raise ,
> raise , None
> raise ,
> raise , None
>
> An omitted secon
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 8/25/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I must have missed this one:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Style for raising exceptions
>>>
>>>
>>>Guido explained that these days exceptions should always be raised as::
>>>
>
On 8/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do have a followup question on the style thing. (I'll leave others to
> answer MAL's question about optimization.) If I want to raise an exception
> without an argument, which of the following is the proper form?
>
> raise ValueErr
MAL> I must have missed this one:
That's because it was brief and to the point, so the discussion lasted for
maybe three messages. Also, someone told us you were on holiday so we
thought we could squeak it through without you noticing. Darn those
Aussies. Late on the pydev summary again!
On 8/25/05, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must have missed this one:
>
> >
> > Style for raising exceptions
> >
> >
> > Guido explained that these days exceptions should always be raised as::
> >
> > raise SomeException("
I must have missed this one:
>
> Style for raising exceptions
>
>
> Guido explained that these days exceptions should always be raised as::
>
> raise SomeException("some argument")
>
> instead of::
>
> raise SomeException, "some
