try..except with empty exceptions
rustompmody at gmail.com
Sat Apr 11 06:17:21 CEST 2015
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 9:17:16 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 10:38 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 7:53:31 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2015 09:42 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 05:31 am, sohcahtoa82 wrote:
> >>>> It isn't document because it is expected. Why would the exception get
> >>>> caught if you're not writing code to catch it? If you write a function
> >>>> and pass it a tuple of exceptions to catch, I'm not sure why you would
> >>>> expect it to catch an exception not in the tuple. Just because the tuple
> >>>> is empty doesn't mean that it should catch *everything* instead. That
> >>>> would be counter-intuitive.
> >>> Really? I have to say, I expected it.
> >> I'm astounded at your expectation. That's like saying a for loop on an
> >> empty list ought to loop on all possible objects in the universe.
> > To work, this analogy should also have two python syntaxes like this:
> > "Normal" for-loop:
> > for var in iterable:
> > suite
> > "Empty" for-loop:
> > for:
> > suite
> That tells me nothing about your opinions. What did you mean by the
> phrase "to work"?
Your analogy is "for loop on an empty list ought to loop on all possible
objects in the universe"
This seemingly works as a demo of a ridiculous expectation
because there is only one pattern of for-loop
for var in iterable:
In the case of exceptions we have two patterns
with the second having a wildly different semantics from the first
More information about the Python-list