Brett C. wrote:
Nick's was obviously directly against looping, but, with no offense to Nick,
how many other people were against it looping? It never felt like it was a
screaming mass with pitchforks but more of a I don't love it, but I can deal
crowd.
My problem with looping was that, with
Ron Adam wrote:
He should also be able to put try excepts before the yield, and after
the yield, or in the block. (But not surrounding the yield, I think.)
I was given to understand that yield is currently
allowed in try-except, just not try-finally. So
this would require a
Steven Bethard wrote:
If I've misunderstood, and there are other situations when
needs_finish is required, it'd be nice to see some more examples.
The problem is try/except/else blocks - those are currently legal, so the
programmer has to make the call about whether finalisation is needed or
On 5/15/05, Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having done the python-dev summary on this topic,
You have my deepest sympathy :-)
So in some sense, PEP 340 was the reason for the lack of enthusiasm;
with the semantics laid out, people were forced to deal with a specific
implementation
Chris Ryland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hate to add to what could be an endless discussion, but... ;-)
In this case, while is the better time-related prefix, whether
keyword (hopeless, due to ages-old boolean-controlled loop association)
or function, since
[Guido]
In rev 1.10 I moved the __enter__ call out of the
try-block again. Having it inside was insane: when __enter__ fails, it
should do its own cleanup rather than expecting __exit__ to clean up
after a partial __enter__.
[Ka-Ping Yee]
No, it wasn't insane. You had a good reason for
At 06:56 PM 5/16/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Anyway, I think it's stable enough now that I can submit it to be put up on
www.python.org (I'll notify the PEP editors directly once I fix a couple of
errors in the current version - like the missing 'raise' in the statement
semantics. . .).
If
At 04:57 PM 5/16/2005 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, one question: will the do protocol be added to built-in resource
types? That is, locks, files, sockets, and so on?
One person proposed that and it was shot down by Greg Ewing. I think
it's better to require a
At 09:53 PM 5/16/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
My PEP punts on providing a general API for passing exceptions into
generators
by making it an internal operation.
Actually, the proposals you made almost subsume PEPs 288 and 325. All
you'd need to do is:
1. move the '__del__' code to a
Greg Ewing wrote:
Brett C. wrote:
Nick's was obviously directly against looping, but, with no offense to Nick,
how many other people were against it looping? It never felt like it was a
screaming mass with pitchforks but more of a I don't love it, but I can deal
crowd.
My problem with
[Guido (responding to Fredrik Lundh's intuitive -1 on PEP 343)]
Would it be better if we pulled back in the generator exit handling
from PEP 340? That's a pretty self-contained thing, and would let you
write try/finally around the yield.
[Nick Coghlan]
That would be good, in my opinion. I
This PEP is a concrete proposal for exception chaining, to follow
up on its mention here on Python-Dev last week as well as earlier
discussions in the past year or two.
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0344.html
I've tried to summarize the applications for chaining mentioned in
these
On Mon, May 16, 2005, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
This PEP is a concrete proposal for exception chaining, to follow
up on its mention here on Python-Dev last week as well as earlier
discussions in the past year or two.
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0344.html
I've tried to summarize the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I personally think that StopIteration, TerminateIteration,
KeyboardInterrupt and perhaps certain other exceptions should derive from
some base class other than Exception (e.g. Raisable or some such) to help
with the
David M. Wilson wrote:
Before charging on ahead with this small task, I was wondering if anyone
would have any objections to such an upgrade. It seems to me that
itertools.chain() could come in handy there, at least.
My only objection to the current implementation is that it doesn't
[Ka-Ping Yee]
This PEP is a concrete proposal for exception chaining, to follow
up on its mention here on Python-Dev last week as well as earlier
discussions in the past year or two.
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0344.html
Here's a bunch of commentary:
You're not giving enough credit
Guido van Rossum wrote:
[SNIP - bunch of points from Guido]
Do we really need both __context__ and __cause__? Methinks that you
only ever need one: either you explicitly chain a new exception to a
cause, and then the context is probably the same or irrelevant, or you
don't explicitly chain,
[Ron Adam]
So I was wondering if something like the following is feasible?
[...]
with opening(file1,m),opening(file2,m),opening(file3,m) as f1,f2,f3:
# do stuff with files
The 'with' (or whatever) statement would need a little more under the
hood, but it might simplify handling
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:24:59PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Brett C. wrote:
Nick's was obviously directly against looping, but, with no offense to Nick,
how many other people were against it looping? It never felt like it was a
screaming mass with pitchforks but more of a I don't love
At 08:21 PM 5/16/2005 -0400, Jack Diederich wrote:
I still haven't gotten used to Guido's heart-attack inducing early
enthusiasm for strange things followed later by a simple proclamation
I like. Some day I'll learn that the sound of fingernails on the
chalkboard is frequently followed by candy
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 08:09:54PM -0500, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Aahz wrote:
I'll comment here in hopes of staving off responses from multiple
people: I don't think these should be double-underscore attributes. The
currently undocumented ``args`` attribute isn't
[Jack Diederich]
I prefer trichomomies over dichotomies, but whether single or double
underscores are the bad or the ugly I'll leave to others. In python
double underscores can only mean I don't handle this, my class does or
I'm a C++ weenie, can I pretend this is private?
Excluding the
22 matches
Mail list logo
