On 2/7/06, qvx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't have an opinion about making exception wrapping optional. But, > what was I experiencing could not be described by "principle of least > surprise" or as being "explicitly stated". Quite contrary.
I agree that what you describe is surprising, and not quite what I was expecting, but error handling has gone through quite a few upgrades recently. I would think that error handling, in this case, should go like this: 1) exception raised 2) this method does not have the @error_handler() decorator, so the exception is passed upwards 3) CP doesn't see a _cp_on_error, so the exception ends up being processed by CP's default error handler. Kevin
