On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 04:07, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > > > > On 30/11/2022 20:27, Anony Mous wrote: > > Danceswithmice wrote: > > > > > > > > The idea is that YOU write "local:", and the interpreter, without you > > ever seeing it, promotes that into a hidden function with a hidden > > name and a hidden call. > > > > --- > > > > p.f.moore wrote: > > > > > That would make "return" in the local scope exit the scope, not the > > enclosing function. Which is almost certainly not what people would expect > > from a "local scope" statement. > > > > Hence my remark about return and yield requiring attention. These > > would be disallowed in the context of "local:" UNLESS there is an > > enclosing scope of "def function():", so there's no issue of what they > > do if they are simply mainlined, and (I think) a well defined result > > if they are not. > > > What about getting an untrapped exception? Again, your suggestion would > mean that only the local scope is exited. Again, this would be unexpected.
Why? Wouldn't an uncaught exception bubble up until it is caught? ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/BJHRJ3WBGJMXCUNNR3L57BTWOR57U45O/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
