On 23Jul2018 1530, David Mertz wrote:
Of course I don't mean that if implemented the semantics would be ambiguous... rather, the proper "swallowing" of different kinds of exceptions is not intuitively obvious, not even to you, Steve. And if some decision was reached and documented, it would remain unclear to new (or even experienced) users of the feature.
As written in the PEP, no exceptions are ever swallowed. The translation into existing syntax is very clearly and unambiguously shown, and there is no exception handling at all. All the exception handling discussion in the PEP is under the heading of "rejected ideas".
This email discussion includes some hypotheticals, since that's the point - I want thoughts and counter-proposals for semantics and discussion. I am 100% committed to an unambiguous PEP, and I believe the current proposal is most defensible. However, I don't want to have a "discussion" where I simply assume that I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and I refuse to discuss or consider alternatives.
So sorry for letting you all think that everything I write is actually the PEP. I had assumed that because my emails are not the PEP that people would realise that they are not the PEP. I'm going to duck out of the discussions here now, since they are not as productive as I'd hoped, and once we have a BDFL-replacement I'll reawaken it and see what is required at that point.
Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
