On 22Jun2017 19:47, Andy Dirnberger <d...@dirnonline.com> wrote:
On Jun 22, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote:
try:
foo(bah[5])
except IndexError as e:
... infer that there is no bah[5] ...
Of course, it is possible that bah[5] existed and that foo() raised an
IndexError of its own. One might intend some sane handling of a missing bah[5]
but instead silently conceal the IndexError from foo() by mishandling it as a
missing bah[5].
Naturally one can rearrange this code to call foo() outside that try/except,
but that degree of control often leads to quite fiddly looking code with the
core flow obscured by many tiny try/excepts.
[...]
How about something like this?
try:
val = bah[5]
except IndexError:
# handle your expected exception here
else:
foo(val)
That is the kind of refactor to which I alluded in the paragraph above. Doing
that a lot tends to obscure the core logic of the code, hence the desire for
something more succinct requiring less internal code fiddling.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
