On 1/11/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:42 PM 1/11/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote: > >On 1/11/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>At 03:33 PM 1/11/2007 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> >Yes, I already see it that way. It would be nice if the rule for 'as' > >> >targets were as consistent as possible (ie, at least the same for except > >> >and with) > >> > >>No can do - with needs tuples, except isn't getting them. > >> > >>If we did allow tuples in both cases, the "except" ones wouldn't be cleared > >>at the end of the block, but the "with" ones would... unless we decided to > >>make them all go away. There might be sane reasons for doing that with > >>"with", but I'm not sure those reasons apply to "except". > > > >We can allow tuples for 'except' at the grammar level, same as 'with'; > >it's just that anyone trying it would get the usual "TypeError: unpack > >non-sequence" since the exceptions-as-sequence behaviour is going > >away. > > Well, people can easily put it back in if they want; all that's required is > an __iter__ method, after all.
Ow, you're right. But let's not encourage that. > I'm talking about the consequences of allowing it at the grammar level, > such as the need to explain why "except foo as (a,b)" does different things > to the names than "except foo as ab". > > Unless, of course, we're going to say that "except foo as (a,b)" makes 'a' > and 'b' disappear outside the block. I like what we have at the grammar level now (in the p3yk branch): only a single name is allowed. If you want to unpack it into something else, you'll have to do the tuple-unpack inside the except clause. Makes sense to me... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
