New submission from gd2shoe: I'm constantly finding myself writing itty-bitty try blocks like such:
process stuff try : someSubProcess.kill() except : pass process stuff I realize this isn't a rigorous use of except, but it's good enough for a vast majority of what I need it for. Still, it adds excess verbiage and makes code slightly harder to read. All I need except to do most of the time is suppress exceptions. I think the language could be enhanced by making the except clause implicit. the above would become: process stuff try : someSubProcess.kill() process stuff The intent remains clear. The code is cleaner and easier to read. This does not happen often in rigorous code, but grep does find 3 counts in standard modules and 9 counts in numpy. I'm certain most prototype code (like mine) would greatly benefit. (My current 300 line project uses 4 so far.) ---------- components: Interpreter Core messages: 169326 nosy: gd2shoe priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Feature request, implicit "except : pass" type: enhancement versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15804> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
