Python Mystery Theatre -- Episode 1: Exceptions

Steven Taschuk 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
the PEP.)

After being rejected, the PEP grew the section
    <http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0317.html#summary-of-discussion>
which briefly discusses these points and others.

-- 
Steven Taschuk                                                 o- @
staschuk at telusplanet.net                                      7O   )
                                                               "  (





More information about the Python-list mailing list