On 8/5/05, Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This does contradict my earlier claim that Python itself doesn't use
> > RuntimeError; I think I'd be happier if it remained RuntimeError. (I
> > think there are a few more uses of it inside Python itself; I don't
> > think it's worth inventing new exceptions for all these.)
> >
>> I just realized that keeping RuntimeError still does not resolve the
> issue that the name kind of sucks for realizing intrinsically that it
> is for quick-and-dirty exceptions (or am I the only one who thinks
> this?). Should we toss in a subclass called SimpleError?
I don't think so. People should feel free to use whatever pre-existing
exception they like, even Exception.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
