<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03.03.2017 18:06, Ethan Furman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:58B9A298.20106@stoneleaf.us" type="cite">On
03/02/2017 12:36 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 01.03.2017 06:34, Ethan Furman wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">On the bright side, if enough use-cases
of this type come up (pesky try/except for a simple
situation), we may be able
<br>
to get Guido to reconsider PEP 463. I certainly think PEP 463
makes a lot more sense that adding list.get().
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It then would make sense to remove .get() on dicts. ;-)
<br>
<br>
and to remove parameter "default" of max().
<br>
and to remove parameter "default" of getattr().
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Backwards compatibility, and performance, says no. ;)
<br>
<br>
try/except expressions are not a silver bullet any more than
try/except blocks. But they can still be very useful.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Totally true. I think both proposals have their merit.<br>
<br>
IIRC, Guido rightfully declared that try/except expressions aren't a
good idea. It's better to find more concrete patterns instead of it.
And I still agree with him.<br>
<br>
<br>
The "default parameter" pattern is such a pattern, and it's vastly
used in the stdlib.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sven<br>
</body>
</html>