exception doc updates

[mwhudson]

BPO	1156102
Nosy	@mwhudson, @loewis
Files	exceptions-stuff.diff: mwh patch Support "bpo-" in Misc/NEWS #1 exceptions-docs-2.diff: mwh's patch Rename README to README.rst and enhance formatting #2

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/mwhudson'
closed_at = <Date 2005-03-04.14:35:21.000>
created_at = <Date 2005-03-03.18:57:01.000>
labels = ['docs']
title = 'exception doc updates'
updated_at = <Date 2005-03-04.14:35:21.000>
user = 'https://github.com/mwhudson'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2005-03-04.14:35:21.000>
actor = 'mwh'
assignee = 'mwh'
closed = True
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2005-03-03.18:57:01.000>
creator = 'mwh'
dependencies = []
files = ['6522', '6523']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 1156102
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 5.0
messages = ['47874', '47875', '47876', '47877', '47878']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['mwh', 'loewis']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'accepted'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue1156102'
versions = ['Python 2.5']

[mwhudson]

I was going to bang on the exception docs until I discovered that
they are already somewhat out-of-date. This updates the reference
manual to describe exceptions with the presumption that class
exceptions are the default, and string exceptions are subsidiary and
deprecated.

I'll probably check this in soon unless someone complains :)

[loewis]

Logged In: YES
user_id=21627

Overall, the patch looks fine. One note though: in the
first chunk, what about the information that you can also
pass an object in the raise, in addition to the type?

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

If you mean the "if it's an instance, then ..., if it's a
tuple then ... if it's anything else then..." stuff, that's
described in the section on raise, which is where it belongs
IMHO. By the time the exception has been raised, it really
is described (conceptually, at least) by the instance.

I've rephrased the first affected paragraph a bit (attached).

[loewis]

Logged In: YES
user_id=21627

I see. This is fine; please apply.

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

Done, in:

ref4.tex revision 1.38
ref7.tex revision 1.43