On Mar 31, 2020, at 03:06, Jimmy Thrasibule <jimmy.thrasib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But if you use a context manager which silences the exception, like
>> contextlib.suppress() or unittest.TestCase.assertRaises(), it is easy to
>> do too.
>>
>> was_not_raised = False
>> with my_context():
>> do_something_sensitive()
>> was_not_raised = True
>> if was_not_raised:
>> print("We're all safe.")
>
> That is indeed a way to workaround my use case. I do still find a
> with/else more elegant.
It might help your proposal to just show a small concrete and realistic example
of how this workaround parallels the workaround for not having for/else, and
how your proposed change would let you improve your code’s readability in
exactly the same way as for/else. At least for me, it’s always been easier to
show a newcomer to Python the point of for/else with a nice example than to try
to explain the semantics and why they’re useful, and I assume the same would be
true here.
_______________________________________________
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/C5ATRBHHKOIOFIWET2J7ONGOJGK7VGBA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
