Message152842
| Author |
kumma |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, brian.curtin, ezio.melotti, kumma, meador.inge, vinay.sajip |
| Date |
2012年02月08日.09:27:52 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.4633407e-13 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CANYHms1W8F6-mk89AYe+H8CjQ9OD84fcqNvwONUqOBCO3hKixQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1314714480.92.0.730814291982.issue9041@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Could we overcome these issues by some kind of exception inheritance?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Meador Inge <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Meador Inge <meadori@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> That is a good question. While it is true that errors other than 'PyExc_OverflowError', will be mapped onto a 'TypeError' I don't think that is a bad thing. Any errors that come out of 'PyFloat_AsDouble' should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not blindly passed back out the call chain. Otherwise, we may end up passing back errors (which are who knows what) that make sense for a caller of 'PyFloat_AsDouble', but not for callers of 'g_set'.
>
> Also, the interface would become variable, meaning that whenever 'PyFloat_AsDouble' introduces new exceptions, then this code would too, which would lead to a somewhat unpredictable interface for callers of 'g_set'.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9041>
> _______________________________________ |
|