On 10/6/2021 5:05 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
So I'm -1 on `except group` or any variant that uses soft keywords. If the SC considers making `group` a proper keyword I can possibly change my mind on this.
For the record (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), I'm -100 on making it a proper keyword. That would be disastrous (e.g. re.Match.group() becomes unusable).
A soft keyword, punctuation, or magic builtin are the only possibilities here.
"except all ..." is viable, since it's already a builtin that isn't useful as "except all:". But if that's the case, "except ExceptionGroup" is equally viable (with perhaps "except ExceptionGroup[Specific, Type]" for filtering?)
I'm not going to argue against "except *", as that's already been accepted. But any alternative needs to: * break the same amount of existing code (i.e. none) * be equally/more readable and discoverable
Since "except *" breaks *no* existing code, that's a pretty easy thing to check for in any alternative. But since "*" here has no precedent (as we've seen in this discussion), virtually any alternative is going to be more readable.
So enjoy bikeshedding, everyone :) Please don't break any of our code.