[Phillip J. Eby]
Okay. Maybe we should just update PEP 325, then? It has much of the stuff that we'd want in the new PEP, such as the rationale. Your new proposal, AFAICT, is just a simple extension of the PEP 325 protocol (i.e., adding 'throw()'), along with some decisions to resolve its open issues. Even the addition of 'throw()' seems tacitly approved by this bit at the end:
"""Were PEP 288 implemented, Exceptions Semantics for close could be layered on top of it"""
So at this point it seems your proposal is just nailing down specifics for the open parts of PEP 325.
Or PEP 288? That has throw() (albeit with a different signature). I could do without the attributes though (PEP 342 provides a much better solution IMO). If either of those PEP authors feels like updating their PEP, they have my blessings! I probably won't get to writing my own for a few more days. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)