But if there are two proposals with conflicting semantics for the same syntax that kills both ideas, doesn’t it? Because apparently it’s not clear what the syntax should mean.
08.04.21 17:59, anthony.flury via Python-ideas пише:
> I was wondering whether a worthwhile extension might be to allow the
> `with` statement to have an `except` and `else` clauses which would
> have the same
> semantics as wrapping the `with` block with a try - for example the
> above would now look like:
> with open('config.cfg', 'r') as cfg:
> # Process the open file
> config = load_config(cfg)
> except FileNotFound:
> logging.info('Config file not found - using default configuration')
> except PermissionError:
> logging.warning('Cannot open config .cfg - using default
> config = default_config()
> logging.info('Using config from config.cfg')
A year or two ago I proposed the same syntax with different semantic: to
catch only exceptions in the context manager, not in the with block.
Exceptions in the with block you can catch by adding try/except around
the with block, exceptions in the with block and the context manager you
can catch by adding try/except around the with statement, but there is
no currently way to catch only exceptions in the context manager.
It is quite a common problem, I encounter it several times per year
since then. I still have a hope to add this feature, and it will
conflict with your idea.
Python-ideas mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Message archived at https://email@example.com/message/OMAEC4EPAWBXBIHHLY75M6GTN6OL4MP4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/