[Guido van Rossum] > [François Pinard] > > > It happens once in a while that I want to comment out the except > > clauses of a try statement, when I want the traceback of the inner > > raising, for debugging purposes. Syntax forces me to also comment > > the `try:' line, and indent out the lines following the `try:' line. > > And of course, the converse operation once debugging is done. This > > is slightly heavy.
> I tend to address this by substituting a different exception. I don't > see the use case common enough to want to allow dangling try-suites. Quite agreed. I just wanted to tell there was a need. > > P.S. - Another detail, while on this subject. On the first message > > I've read on this topic, the original poster wrote something like: > > f = None > > try: > > f = action1(...) > > ... > > finally: > > if f is not None: > > action2(f) > > The proposed syntax did not repeat this little part about "None", > > quoted above, so suggesting an over-good feeling about syntax > > efficiency. While nice, the syntax still does not solve this > > detail, which occurs frequently in my experience. Oh, I do not have > > solutions to offer, but it might be worth a thought from the mighty > > thinkers of this list :-) > I don't understand your issue here. What is the problem with that > code? Perhaps it ought to be rewritten as > f = action1() > try: > ... > finally: > action2(f) > I can't see how this would ever do something different than your version. Oh, the problem is that if `action1()' raises an exception (and this is why it has to be within the `try', not before), `f' will not receive a value, and so, may not be initialised in all cases. The (frequent) stunt is a guard so this never becomes a problem. -- François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca _______________________________________________ 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
