Guido van Rossum wrote: > > [...] a generator doing cleanup depending on the > exception thrown (like the transactional() example below) can > *catch* the exception thrown if it wants to and doesn't have to > worry about re-raising it. I find this more convenient for the > generator writer. Against this was brought in that the > generator *appears* to suppress an exception that it cannot > suppress: the transactional() example would be more clear > according to this view if it re-raised the original exception > after the call to db.rollback(). [...]
Of course, the explicit re-raise is only needed in a minority of use cases where the exception is caught. Two additional points in favour of this: - refactoring a naked try as a with + template is more direct and uniform across all use cases. - it is upwards compatible if the prohibition on templates suppressing exceptions is ever reconsidered. (Flow control macro discussion not withstanding.) - Arnold _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
