This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | brett.cannon |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, brett.cannon, nnorwitz, zotbar1234 |
| Date | 2008年03月16日.16:53:03 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.07507068 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1205686384.72.0.701962445687.issue2291@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Actually, if you go back to 2.4, before BaseException even existed, a try/except with a new-style class in the 'except' clause was also possible. Actual enforcement of what can be in an 'except' clause is a new thing added by PEP 352. Suddenly making this any more than a warning will be too aggressive. And the PEP already stated the transition path. As I said, I have no problem speeding up PendingDeprecationWarnings in 2.6 and adding Py3K warnings now, but anything more severe in 2.6 (i.e., a DeprecationWarning flat-out) would require python-dev approval. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月16日 16:53:05 | brett.cannon | set | spambayes_score: 0.0750707 -> 0.07507068 recipients: + brett.cannon, nnorwitz, belopolsky, zotbar1234 |
| 2008年03月16日 16:53:04 | brett.cannon | set | spambayes_score: 0.0750707 -> 0.0750707 messageid: <1205686384.72.0.701962445687.issue2291@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月16日 16:53:04 | brett.cannon | link | issue2291 messages |
| 2008年03月16日 16:53:03 | brett.cannon | create | |