Guido van Rossum wrote:
[Fred Drake]
I don't know if requiring class-based exceptions will make the runtime any simpler, but that seems the only reason to do it.
Do what? *Require* class exceptions? You're probably right, and I think the gain is minimal.
Yes. Besides, I still think that string-based exceptions are just convenient for quick & dirty, throw-away test scripts.
Let me repeat my plans for 1.6.
- Remove -X; the standard exceptions are always class-based.
- Change all standard library and other example code to use class-based exceptions with a standard exception as base class, to set an example.
- Still allow string exceptions in user code.
- Still allow class exceptions that don't use a standard exception base class in user code.
Sounds okay. --- PS: I'm particularly happy today :-) because I've finally published the new version of our Web site http://www.inrialpes.fr. Two things I'd like to mention: (1) it shouldn't have been possible without quick Python scripts ;) (2) I'll find the time to reinvoke some of the topics discussed here instead of being mute as a fish. That said, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of you! -- Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252