[Stackless] A question about exceptions

[Jeff Senn]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Kristján V. Jónsson wrote:

>
> semantics.  Doing it that way appears to have no ill effects in our  
> rather
> large codebase (except for annoying me), so I wonder why this simply
> isn't the default.

Yes, it would probably be slightly better to have the exception  
automatically
cleared at the end of 'except' unless some sort of sys.exc_save() was  
called.
Since, as you point out, that is the more common usage.  Note: there  
would be
some slightly more complicated explanations to make in that case  
about embedded
try/excepts....

[As Christian points out: it doesn't really belong in the frame, you  
could just force
the user to stash it somewhere as well. But then the user might need  
a stack
if exceptions recurse....]

But... in any case, it is very unlikely to change since it would  
potentially
break a lot of existing code in subtle ways.  So you are probably
going to remain annoyed by a historical-and-not-completely-oracular  
judgement ...
:-)

-Jas





_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless