| msg47572 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh)  |
Date: 2005-01-18 18:09 |
| This patch allows new-style exceptions and makes Exception a new-style class. The test suite runs, apart from failures in test_tempfile (will dig, but doubt this is my fault) and test__locale (known OS X problem). |
|
|
| msg47573 - (view) |
Author: Simon Percivall (simon.percivall) |
Date: 2005-01-18 19:47 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=329382 One thing: Raising an old-style class/instance doesn't give a traceback or populate sys.last_*. |
|
|
| msg47574 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-01-19 13:25 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 You're right! Odd. No time to fix it today, I'm afraid. |
|
|
| msg47575 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-02-09 14:18 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 New patch attached. Did this a while ago, don't actually remember the details of what's new :-/ The problem with the previous patch was that one of my exception- checking macros had the side-effect of clearing any pending exception... |
|
|
| msg47576 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-02-15 15:40 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 I found the final wart (caught by test_tempfile of all things). I think the attached is good to go. Issues remaining: test_pickletools fails, because PickleError is now new- style and thus pickles differently. Docs. |
|
|
| msg47577 - (view) |
Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * |
Date: 2005-02-15 16:03 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=31435 FYI, there's nothing special about PicklingError in the pickletools doctest, it's just aiming at an example of an instance -- that it's also an exception instance is irrelevant to what the test is aiming at. Tell you what: I'll check in a suitable change to pickletools.py, so that the example it uses stops interfering with this patch. |
|
|
| msg47578 - (view) |
Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * |
Date: 2005-02-15 16:17 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=31435 FYI, there's nothing special about PicklingError in the pickletools doctest, it's just aiming at an example of an instance -- that it's also an exception instance is irrelevant to what the test is aiming at. Tell you what: I'll check in a suitable change to pickletools.py, so that the example it uses stops interfering with this patch. |
|
|
| msg47579 - (view) |
Author: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett) |
Date: 2005-02-15 17:34 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=764593 Several lines near the end of errors.c had no visible change. Was this a whitespace cleanup, or is this a risk of tab/space mixing? |
|
|
| msg47580 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-02-15 17:39 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Jim: Yes. It looks like I ran delete-trailing-whitespace on the file at some point. I could redo the diff without them, but it would be tedious... Tim: thanks! |
|
|
| msg47581 - (view) |
Author: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett) |
Date: 2005-02-15 17:51 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=764593 Is it worth adding a comment on parsing precedence? An object can be both an instance and a class, which puts some ambiguity between "raise class" and "raise classinstance". Assuming the class seems sensible; I'm just wondering whether it should be made explicit. (Making something both an instance and a subclass of anything besides object might be weird enough that you don't *want* to document the results yet.) |
|
|
| msg47582 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-02-15 19:37 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 > Is it worth adding a comment on parsing precedence? I've been studiously avoiding thinking about that :) > Making something both an instance and a subclass of > anything besides object might be weird enough that you > don't *want* to document the results yet. Quite. What happens, happens IMHO. I'm prepared to be argued into a different position on this, but I do think the only reason someone would do this is curiousity :) |
|
|
| msg47583 - (view) |
Author: Michael Hudson (mwh) |
Date: 2005-12-05 22:17 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=6656 Here's a patch updated to SVN HEAD (the PEP 342 implementation meant this wasn't quite trivial). |
|
|
| msg47584 - (view) |
Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) * |
Date: 2005-12-10 17:19 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=1038590 New patch worked fine on Ubuntu 5.10 (all tests in 'make test' passed, aside from the skips due to the various extension modules I can't build) |
|
|
| msg47585 - (view) |
Author: Michael Chermside (mcherm)  |
Date: 2005-12-12 17:00 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=99874 I haven't tried out the patch, I just want to chime in to say how VERY much I would like to have this. I'm ready NOW to completely give up using old-style classes, but because of exceptions I'm not allowed to. This would fix that for me. If Python had a "vote for your favorite bugs" list, I'd be voting for this one. |
|
|
| msg47586 - (view) |
Author: Brett Cannon (brett.cannon) * |
Date: 2006-03-01 04:35 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=357491 Rev. 42711 has the patch with the requisite tweaks for it to work for PEP 352. Thanks, Michael! |
|
|