It stood out pretty clearly to me. In my example I added an 'as err' clause that the OP. That does make it stand out less.
I've used those nested try's myself at times. But I'm concerned the syntax would encourage an antipattern.
Although they are not identical, it seems like this should address most actual use cases:
try:
might_raise_OSError()
might_raise_ValueError()
might_raise_other()
except OSError as err:
pass
except ValueError:
pass
except:
oh_well()
I'm not advocating for it (nor against it). But the OP proposes something clear different from the example in current Python.
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 12:39 PM Wes Turner
try:
f = open('myfile.txt')
s = f.readline()
i = int(s.strip())
except OSError as err:
print("OS error: {0}".format(err))
except ValueError:
print("Could not convert data to an integer.")
except:
print("Unexpected error:", sys.exc_info()[0])
raise
```
I.e.
try:
might_raise_OSError()
except OSError as err try:
might_raise_ValueError()
except ValueError try:
might_raise_other()
except:
oh_well()
The proposal is to more concisely catch exceptions raised within the 'except' suites themselves.
But I think Wes has shown pretty clear evidence that the proposal is easily misinterpreted. It looks too similar to existing syntax. Something that's more visually distinct at a glance is required.