On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum <guido <at> python.org> writes: >> >> That said, it seems you are proposing taking the logical consequence >> of making except handlers properly nested and scoped, > > It's exactly that. > >> I would be okay as well with restricting bare raise syntactically to >> appearing only inside an except block, to emphasize the change in >> semantics that was started when we decided to make the optional >> variable disappear at the end of the except block. >> >> This would render the following code illegal: >> >> def f(): >> try: 1/0 >> except: pass >> raise > > Please note as well that: > > def f(): > try: 1/0 > except: pass > return sys.exc_info() > > would return (None, None, None). > Actually, it already does with the patch I proposed for #2507, and the test > suite runs fine after fixing a problem in doctest.py.
I'm fine with that. Since in 3.0 sys.exc_info() returns nothing that isn't accessible from the caught variable, the only reason to use it is that it makes the exception available to functions *called* from the except clause. (E.g. logging.exception() works this way.) -- --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
