On 22 February 2014 00:59, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The deferral currently has this snippet: >> >> """In order to ensure compatibility with future versions, ensure that >> any consecutive except operators are parenthesized to guarantee the >> interpretation you expect.""" >> >> That's not a reasonable expectation - either the parentheses have to >> be mandatory as part of the deferral, or else multiple except clause >> support needs to be listed as rejected rather than deferred. > > I've spent the better part of the last hour debating this in my head. > It's basically a question of simplicity versus future flexibility: > either keep the syntax clean and deny the multiple-except-clause > option, or mandate the parens and permit it. The first option has, in > my own head, the stronger case - this is designed for simplicity, and > it wouldn't be that big a deal to completely reject multiple except > clauses and simply require that the
Yep, moving multiple exceptions to the "Rejected subproposals" section would work for me. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
