Slight irritation with try/finally indentation

[Jim Abrams]

pinard at iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) wrote in
news:mailman.1019657853.14965.python-list at python.org: 

> Hello, people.
> 
> There is something which I find slightly irritating with the
> try/finally construct, and wonder if someone would not have a good
> advice to offer. I guess it is very usual that one has, within a suite,
> something like: 
> 
>     [...]
>     setup()
>     process()
>     cleanup()
>     [...]
> 
> with `cleanup' undoing the effect of `setup', more or less, really
> seeing `setup()' and `cleanup()' as a kind of big parentheses around
> `process()'. In a context where `process()' may raise exceptions,
> `cleanup()' might be mandatory once `setup()' has completed, so one
> rewrites the above as: 
> 
>     [...]
>     setup()
>     try:
>         process()
>     finally:
>         cleanup()
>     [...]
> 
> What I find irritating is that `cleanup()' is not aligned anymore with
> `setup()', as it was originally, so we loose on the legibility of the
> parenthetical idiom we wanted to stress.  Surely, I may _not_ write:
> 
>     [...]
>     try:
>         setup()
>         process()
>     finally:
>         cleanup()
>     [...]
> 
> despite it would look nicer, because if `setup()' fails, `cleanup()'
> gets called when it should not have been.  Resorting to tricks like:
> 
>     [...]
>     if True:
>         setup()
>     try:
>         process()
>     finally:
>         cleanup()
>     [...]
> 
> is the only solution I see, but this is not much appealing either,
> maybe the cure is not worse than the illness.  I am not sure.  Are
> others on this list bothered with this issue?  And if yes, what do you
> choose to do? 
> 


setup()

try:
    	process() 
except: # or other exception handling
    	pass

cleanup()


?