Python Mystery Theatre -- Episode 1: Exceptions
staschuk at telusplanet.net
Sat Jul 12 21:09:36 CEST 2003
Quoth Erik Max Francis:
> But, as I recall, PEP 317 was outright rejected, so it looks like this
> will be with us for a long time.
It was indeed rejected, primarily on the grounds that its putative
benefit did not justify the cost of migration. In the end, even I
(the PEP author) agree with that assessment.
I still believe, however, that the implicit instantiation which
Raymond's Acts II and III illustrate is a wart, fully deserves
inclusion in Python Mystery Theatre, and, as a matter of style,
should usually be avoided. Of course, ...
> I personally have never had a problem with the distinction, raise C, x
> always seemed fairly clean to me even though really what you mean is
> raise C(x).
... opinions vary. Guido, for example, was not convinced by the
PEP's arguments that implicit instantiation is a Bad Thing. (Note
that even if he had been, the migration cost would still have sunk
After being rejected, the PEP grew the section
which briefly discusses these points and others.
Steven Taschuk o- @
staschuk at telusplanet.net 7O )
More information about the Python-list