Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [Fran�ois 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
>> try:
>> f = action1(...)
>> ...
>> finally:
>> if f is not None:
>> action2(f)
>>
>> 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()
> try:
> ...
> finally:
> action2(f)
>
> 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
block.
f = None
try:
try:
f = action1()
except:
print "error"
finally:
if f is not None:
action2(f)
Reinhold
--
Mail address is perfectly valid!
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
