On 15/09/2012 09:21, Paul Wiseman wrote:
On 14 September 2012 02:52, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:

 > try:
 >    try:

Ugh-ugh.<0.5 wink>

 > try:
 >      operation()
 > except Exception as err:
 >      if isinstance(err, IOError) and err.errno == 2:

Ugh.<0.5 wink>

Not your fault, but these constructions are pretty ugly IMO, I have to
go with the OP on that.

ISTR there were discussions of "qualified except" clauses here maybe
6mo to 1yr ago?  That is, they'd look something like

try:
     operation()
except IOError as err if err.errno == 2:
     do_something()
except Exception:
     logger.error("Error performing operation: {}".format(err.message)")
     some_clean_up()
     raise

Again ISTR that this got spiked for some reason, but maybe it will be
of use to the OP in formulating his next idea.  Sorry for the lack of
precise reference.

I like that "qualified except". Almost goes without saying it's a much better idea/solution that my idea of a continue (which has already pointed out to be flawed- I'm not sure why now I thought it was always a syntax error)
I really like this qualified except!  It's meaning is intuitively obvious - AND it's useful.
Rob Cliffe
 
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas



_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas