PEP 317: Eliminate Implicit Exception Instantiation

Steven Taschuk staschuk at
Mon Jun 9 08:18:30 CEST 2003

PEP: 317
Title: Eliminate Implicit Exception Instantiation
Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/09 04:43:39 $
Author: Steven Taschuk <staschuk at>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 06-May-2003
Python-Version: 2.4
Post-History: 09-Jun-2003


    "For clarity in new code, the form ``raise class(argument, ...)``
    is recommended (i.e. make an explicit call to the constructor)."

    -- Guido van Rossum, in 1997 [1]_

This PEP proposes the formal deprecation and eventual elimination of
forms of the ``raise`` statement which implicitly instantiate an
exception.  For example, statements such as ::

    raise HullBreachError
    raise KitchenError, 'all out of baked beans'

must under this proposal be replaced with their synonyms ::

    raise HullBreachError()
    raise KitchenError('all out of baked beans')

Note that these latter statements are already legal, and that this PEP
does not change their meaning.

Eliminating these forms of ``raise`` makes it impossible to use string
exceptions; accordingly, this PEP also proposes the formal deprecation
and eventual elimination of string exceptions.

Adoption of this proposal breaks backwards compatibility.  Under the
proposed implementation schedule, Python 2.4 will introduce warnings
about uses of ``raise`` which will eventually become incorrect, and
Python 3.0 will eliminate them entirely.  (It is assumed that this
transition period -- 2.4 to 3.0 -- will be at least one year long, to
comply with the guidelines of PEP 5 [2]_.)


String Exceptions

It is assumed that removing string exceptions will be uncontroversial,
since it has been intended since at least Python 1.5, when the
standard exception types were changed to classes [1]_.

For the record: string exceptions should be removed because the
presence of two kinds of exception complicates the language without
any compensation.  Instance exceptions are superior because, for

* the class-instance relationship more naturally expresses the
  relationship between the exception type and value,

* they can be organized naturally using superclass-subclass
  relationships, and

* they can encapsulate error-reporting behaviour (for example).

Implicit Instantiation

Guido's 1997 essay [1]_ on changing the standard exceptions into
classes makes clear why ``raise`` can instantiate implicitly:

    "The raise statement has been extended to allow raising a class
    exception without explicit instantiation. The following forms,
    called the "compatibility forms" of the raise statement [...]  The
    motivation for introducing the compatibility forms was to allow
    backward compatibility with old code that raised a standard

For example, it was desired that pre-1.5 code which used string
exception syntax such as ::

    raise TypeError, 'not an int'

would work both on versions of Python in which ``TypeError`` was a
string, and on versions in which it was a class.

When no such consideration obtains -- that is, when the desired
exception type is not a string in any version of the software which
the code must support -- there is no good reason to instantiate
implicitly, and it is clearer not to.  For example:

1. In the code ::

           raise MyError, raised
       except MyError, caught:

   the syntactic parallel between the ``raise`` and ``except``
   statements strongly suggests that ``raised`` and ``caught`` refer
   to the same object.  For string exceptions this actually is the
   case, but for instance exceptions it is not.

2. When instantiation is implicit, it is not obvious when it occurs,
   for example, whether it occurs when the exception is raised or when
   it is caught.  Since it actually happens at the ``raise``, the code
   should say so.

   (Note that at the level of the C API, an exception can be "raised"
   and "caught" without being instantiated; this is used as an
   optimization by, for example, ``PyIter_Next``.  But in Python, no
   such optimization is or should be available.)

3. An implicitly instantiating ``raise`` statement with no arguments,
   such as ::

       raise MyError

   simply does not do what it says: it does not raise the named

4. The equivalence of ::

       raise MyError
       raise MyError()

   conflates classes and instances, creating a possible source of
   confusion for beginners.  (Moreover, it is not clear that the
   interpreter could distinguish between a new-style class and an
   instance of such a class, so implicit instantiation may be an
   obstacle to any future plan to let exceptions be new-style

In short, implicit instantiation has no advantages other than
backwards compatibility, and so should be phased out along with what
it exists to ensure compatibility with, namely, string exceptions.


The syntax of ``raise_stmt`` [3]_ is to be changed from ::

    raise_stmt ::= "raise" [expression ["," expression ["," expression]]]

to ::

    raise_stmt ::= "raise" [expression ["," expression]]

If no expressions are present, the ``raise`` statement behaves as it
does presently: it re-raises the last exception that was active in the
current scope, and if no exception has been active in the current
scope, a ``TypeError`` is raised indicating that this is the problem.

Otherwise, the first expression is evaluated, producing the *raised
object*.  Then the second expression is evaluated, if present,
producing the *substituted traceback*.  If no second expression is
present, the substituted traceback is ``None``.

The raised object must be an instance.  The class of the instance is
the exception type, and the instance itself is the exception value.
If the raised object is not an instance -- for example, if it is a
class or string -- a ``TypeError`` is raised.

If the substituted traceback is not ``None``, it must be a traceback
object, and it is substituted instead of the current location as the
place where the exception occurred.  If it is neither a traceback
object nor ``None``, a ``TypeError`` is raised.

Backwards Compatibility

Migration Plan

Future Statement

Under the future statement [4]_ ::

    from __future__ import raise_with_two_args

the syntax and semantics of the ``raise`` statement will be as
described above.  This future feature is to appear in Python 2.4; its
effect is to become standard in Python 3.0.

As the examples below illustrate, this future statement is only needed
for code which uses the substituted traceback argument to ``raise``;
simple exception raising does not require it.


Three new warnings [5]_, all of category ``DeprecationWarning``, are
to be issued to point out uses of ``raise`` which will become
incorrect under the proposed changes.

The first warning is issued when a ``raise`` statement is executed in
which the first expression evaluates to a string.  The message for
this warning is::

    raising strings will be impossible in the future

The second warning is issued when a ``raise`` statement is executed in
which the first expression evaluates to a class.  The message for this
warning is::

    raising classes will be impossible in the future

The third warning is issued when a ``raise`` statement with three
expressions is compiled.  (Not, note, when it is executed; this is
important because the ``SyntaxError`` which this warning presages will
occur at compile-time.)  The message for this warning is::

    raising with three arguments will be impossible in the future

These warnings are to appear in Python 2.4, and disappear in Python
3.0, when the conditions which cause them are simply errors.


Code Using Implicit Instantiation

Code such as ::

    class MyError(Exception):

    raise MyError, 'spam'

will issue a warning when the ``raise`` statement is executed.  The
``raise`` statement should be changed to instantiate explicitly::

    raise MyError('spam')

Code Using String Exceptions

Code such as ::

    MyError = 'spam'
    raise MyError, 'eggs'

will issue a warning when the ``raise`` statement is executed.  The
exception type should be changed to a class::

    class MyError(Exception):

and, as in the previous example, the ``raise`` statement should be
changed to instantiate explicitly ::

    raise MyError('eggs')

Code Supplying a Traceback Object

Code such as ::

    raise MyError, 'spam', mytraceback

will issue a warning when compiled.  The statement should be changed
to ::

    raise MyError('spam'), mytraceback

and the future statement ::

    from __future__ import raise_with_two_args

should be added at the top of the module.  Note that adding this
future statement also turns the other two warnings into errors, so the
changes described in the previous examples must also be applied.

The special case ::

    raise sys.exc_type, sys.exc_info, sys.exc_traceback

(which is intended to re-raise a previous exception) should be changed
simply to ::


A Failure of the Plan

It may occur that a ``raise`` statement which raises a string or
implicitly instantiates is not executed in production or testing
during the phase-in period for this PEP.  In that case, it will not
issue any warnings, but will instead suddenly fail one day in Python
3.0 or a subsequent version.  (The failure is that the wrong exception
gets raised, namely a ``TypeError`` complaining about the arguments to
``raise``, instead of the exception intended.)

Such cases can be made rarer by prolonging the phase-in period; they
cannot be made impossible short of issuing at compile-time a warning
for every ``raise`` statement.


.. [1] "Standard Exception Classes in Python 1.5", Guido van Rossum.

.. [2] "Guidelines for Language Evolution", Paul Prescod.

.. [3] "Python Language Reference", Guido van Rossum.

.. [4] PEP 236 "Back to the __future__", Tim Peters.

.. [5] PEP 230 "Warning Framework", Guido van Rossum.


This document has been placed in the public domain.

   Local Variables:
   mode: indented-text
   indent-tabs-mode: nil
   sentence-end-double-space: t
   fill-column: 70

More information about the Python-list mailing list