Re: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it
Lie Ryan writes: > There are lots of reason why bare-except is bad, one being is that it > makes it way too easy to ignore errors that you don't actually want to > silence; and given that bare-excepts would prevent Ctrl+C (Interrupt) > from working. Sorry, but IMHO we shouldn't make syntax sugar for bad > practices. Right. Another way I've seen this expressed is “It should be easy to do the right thing, and awkward to do the wrong thing”. -- \ “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not | `\entitled to their own facts.” —US Senator Pat Moynihan | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it (was "Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for "except:pass"")
On 03/03/2010 08:27 PM, Oren Elrad wrote:
> Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner.
>
> I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the
> following syntactic sugar:
>
> silence:
> . block
>
> ->
>
> try:
> .block
> except:
> .pass
>
> The logic here is that there are a ton of "except: pass" statements[1]
> floating around in code that do not need to be there. Meanwhile, the
> potential keyword 'silence' does not appear to be in significant use
> as a variable[2], or an alternative keyword might be imagined
> ('quiet', 'hush', 'stfu') but I somewhat like the verbiness of
> 'silence' since that is precisely what it does to the block (that is,
> you have to inflect it as a verb, not a noun -- you are telling the
> block to be silent). Finally, since this is the purest form of
> syntactic sugar, I cannot fathom any parsing, interpreting or other
> complications that would arise.
Given that python HATE bare-except (and `pass`-block bare except is even
worse) and given python's idiosyncrasies "There should be one-- and
preferably only one --obvious way to do it", "Errors should never pass
silently"; the chance for `silence` keyword is precisely zero.
> I appreciate any feedback, including frank statements that you'd
> rather not trifle with such nonsense.
There are lots of reason why bare-except is bad, one being is that it
makes it way too easy to ignore errors that you don't actually want to
silence; and given that bare-excepts would prevent Ctrl+C (Interrupt)
from working. Sorry, but IMHO we shouldn't make syntax sugar for bad
practices.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: "Only one obvious way..."
On 2006-05-08 02:51:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > The phrase "only one obvious way..." is nearly the most absurd > marketing bullshit I have ever heard; topped only by "it fits your > brain". Why are so many clearly intelligent and apparently > self-respecting hard-core software engineers repeating this kind of > claptrap? Really should read "only one obvious way to people with a similar background and little creativity" or "it fits your brain if you've mostly programmed in algol syntax languages and alternative ideas make said brain hurt." trimmed to c.l.python and c.l.lisp -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: "Only one obvious way..."
>If I ever _DO_ find a language that *DOES* mercilessly refactor in pursuit > of the ideal "only one obvious way", I may well jump ship, since my faith in > Python's adherence to this principle which I cherish so intensely has > been so badly broken ... The phrase "only one obvious way..." is nearly the most absurd marketing bullshit I have ever heard; topped only by "it fits your brain". Why are so many clearly intelligent and apparently self-respecting hard-core software engineers repeating this kind of claptrap? It sounds more like a religious cult than a programming language community. If one of my students answered the question: "Why use X for Y?" with "X fits your brain." or "There's only one obvious way to do Y in X." I'd laugh out loud before failing them. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
