[Python-Dev] Pre-PEP: Unifying try-except and try-finally
reinhold-birkenfeld-nospam at wolke7.net
Fri May 6 18:00:46 CEST 2005
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [François Pinard]
>> It happens once in a while that I want to comment out the except clauses
>> of a try statement, when I want the traceback of the inner raising, for
>> debugging purposes. Syntax forces me to also comment the `try:' line,
>> and indent out the lines following the `try:' line. And of course, the
>> converse operation once debugging is done. This is slightly heavy.
> I tend to address this by substituting a different exception. I don't
> see the use case common enough to want to allow dangling try-suites.
Easy enough, adding "raise" at the top of the except clause also solves the problem.
>> P.S. - Another detail, while on this subject. On the first message I've read
>> on this topic, the original poster wrote something like:
>> f = None
>> f = action1(...)
>> if f is not None:
>> The proposed syntax did not repeat this little part about "None", quoted
>> above, so suggesting an over-good feeling about syntax efficiency.
>> While nice, the syntax still does not solve this detail, which occurs
>> frequently in my experience. Oh, I do not have solutions to offer, but
>> it might be worth a thought from the mighty thinkers of this list :-)
> I don't understand your issue here. What is the problem with that
> code? Perhaps it ought to be rewritten as
> f = action1()
> I can't see how this would ever do something different than your version.
Well, in the original the call to action1 was wrapped in an additional try-except
f = None
f = action1()
if f is not None:
Mail address is perfectly valid!
More information about the Python-Dev