On 30/07/2019 02:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 03:12:21PM +0100, Rhodri James wrote:
I'm afraid I agree with Guido. I don't imagine I will use this feature
very often, and I can see myself making that mistake every time.
Well, if you don't use this feature very often, you aren't really the
audience for the feature and your feedback should therefore be weighted
lower *wink*
I'll admit I was thinking much the same ;-)
I don't have a strong option one way or another on this feature, but I
think we should resist the trap of thinking that every feature must be
immediately and intuitively obvious to every reader.
I would actually like this feature, my problem is that it is immediately
and obviously *misleading*. It needs tagging somehow to stop you (well,
me) immediately thinking "Oh, this about exceptions in the body of the
with/for." You suggested elsewhere giving the exception a source field,
but that might be impossibly fine grained. I've been trying to come up
with something more like this:
with something_exceptionable() as f:
do_something_with(f)
except with SomeException as e:
handle_exception_in_setup_or_teardown(e)
except SomeOtherException as e:
handle_exception_in_body(e)
# Because I like this syntactic sugar too
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/KM356UXMLQYARSGP3M3EDA4DBR7QIXIE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
