Message140501
| Author |
benjamin.peterson |
| Recipients |
Trundle, benjamin.peterson, eric.snow, georg.brandl, loewis, marienz, ncoghlan, pitrou, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2011年07月16日.15:33:25 |
| SpamBayes Score |
8.039431e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CAPZV6o-zuA+TyX=Hi07hNY2+joRZ0op+0Pyz07R58uQyNFcotA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<CADiSq7dUEAJO=dSGFxWSHtNp2AXrO_VFuec+Ns_yi4dCVNuBiw@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content |
2011年7月16日 Nick Coghlan <report@bugs.python.org>:
>
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> It also makes it clear to users whether they've just run up against a
> limitation of the implementation they're using or whether what they've
> written is genuinely illegal code. They are NOT the same thing.
> Attempting to conflate them into one exception for the mere sake of
> not adding a new exception type is a false economy. Take it to
> python-dev if you want, but I will strongly oppose this check going in
> with it raising an ordinary SyntaxError instead of a new subclass.
Why would it matter to users what variety of limitation they're
running up against? As I said, they're still going to have to change
their code. |
|