On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:05:01PM +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 7/5/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Why not simply inherit socket.error from EnvironmentError?
> >
> >True, that would be simpler; is it e
On 7/5/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Why not simply inherit socket.error from EnvironmentError?
>
> True, that would be simpler; is it enough? If we avoid adding the new
> exception, I really think it should
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Why not simply inherit socket.error from EnvironmentError?
True, that would be simpler; is it enough? If we avoid adding the new
exception, I really think it should inherit from IOError, not
EnviromnentError because sockets are I
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:58:44 -0700, "Gregory P. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In response to bug 1706815 and seeing messy code to catch errors in
>network apps I've implemented most of the ideas in the bug and added a
>NetworkIOError exception (child of IOError). With this, socket.error
>would
Why not simply inherit socket.error from EnvironmentError?
On 7/4/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In response to bug 1706815 and seeing messy code to catch errors in
> network apps I've implemented most of the ideas in the bug and added a
> NetworkIOError exception (child of IOEr
