On 10/6/2021 5:05 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
So I'm -1 on `except group` or any variant that uses soft keywords. If
the SC considers making `group` a proper keyword I can possibly change
my mind on this.
For the record (and I'm sure I'm not the only one), I'm -100 on making
it a proper keyword. That would be disastrous (e.g. re.Match.group()
becomes unusable).
A soft keyword, punctuation, or magic builtin are the only possibilities
here.
"except all ..." is viable, since it's already a builtin that isn't
useful as "except all:". But if that's the case, "except ExceptionGroup"
is equally viable (with perhaps "except ExceptionGroup[Specific, Type]"
for filtering?)
I'm not going to argue against "except *", as that's already been
accepted. But any alternative needs to:
* break the same amount of existing code (i.e. none)
* be equally/more readable and discoverable
Since "except *" breaks *no* existing code, that's a pretty easy thing
to check for in any alternative. But since "*" here has no precedent (as
we've seen in this discussion), virtually any alternative is going to be
more readable.
So enjoy bikeshedding, everyone :) Please don't break any of our code.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/YOTXVPFABO4YKQ7TSEA3NMGNF47MBH5T/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
