On 2021-04-08 11:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:24 AM Paul Bryan <pbr...@anode.ca> wrote:
Q. Safe to assume this would catch exceptions from both the call to `open` as
well as the call to `open.__enter__`?
No, not safe to assume. It's equally reasonable to define it as
guarding only the body of the statement, or as guarding the header as
well. The semantics have to be locked in one way or the other, and
half the time that's going to be incorrect.
Hmm, I don't see the problem.
I'd assume/want it to catch everything not already caught by the context
manager. The scope would be everything inside the "try-with..." and not be
mandatory of course. That's why the original example "try ..." comes first and
is on the outside.
If you wanted it to guard only *inside* the with statement, then you'd not be
putting the try on the outside in the first place. You'd put it inside.
I've used try-with many, many times, and can't currently remember any instances
of with-try.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
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/LKJRNFRYV2SILVPWNL2YP7ZXI7OPPVGZ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
