On 1/2/20 12:55 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2020, at 06:32, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>> Mainly, you had mentioned you felt like "if try" had a 'smell' to it
>> but couldn't figure out what it is, and I was trying help identify
>> that, and... well, after thinking about it more, I realized - "if
>> try" may not have many uses, but "if not try" has a million: any code
>> of the form
>>
>> try:
>> x
>> except:
>> y
>>
>> where x is an expression could be written as
>>
>> if not try x:
>> y
>>
>> And therein lies the problem - it's a construct for catching
>> exceptions with no provision for declaring what kind of exception is
>> caught. You may have only envisioned it for ValueError, but it'd be
>> weird for something that *looks* so general to be limited in that
>> way.
[...]
> But it looks like it isn’t good enough, and I don’t think there’s any
> other combination of existing keywords that could spell “if this
> works”. I’ll give it a little more thought, but it’s probably not
> going to pan out. Oh well.
What about "if except" (any time I can eliminate a "not," that's a good
thing):
if except x:
y
which could even leave room to specify which exception(s) is/are caught:
if except ValueError: x:
y
except that the two colons on one line look a little odd in Python.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/GDTHWKXXKMCI6HK2L44HDZFSICELS6IF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
