[Brett] > The problem with existing code checking for this situation is that the > situation itself is not the same as it will be if bare 'except's > change:: > > try: > ... > except: > ... > except TerminatingException: > ... > > has never really been possible before, but will be if the PEP goes > forward.
That's not an improvement. The above code fragment should trigger a gag reflex indicating that something is wrong with the proposed default for a bare except. > Having a catch-all for > exceptions that a bare 'except' will skip that is more explicit than > ``except BaseException`` seems reasonable to me. The data gathered by Jack and Steven's research indicate that the number of cases where TerminatingException would be useful is ZERO. Try not to introduce a new builtin that no one will ever use. Try not to add a new word whose only function is to replace a two-word tuple (TOOWTDI). Try not to unnecessarily nest the tree (FITBN). Try not to propose solutions to problems that don't exist (PBP). Raymond _______________________________________________ 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
