Am 04.03.2010 18:20, schrieb Robert Kern:
What I'm trying to explain is that the with: statement has a use even if
Cleanup doesn't. Arguing that Cleanup doesn't improve on try: finally:
does not mean that the with: statement doesn't improve on try: finally:.
Yes, the with-statement rocks :)
I suggested such a thing a few days ago in another thread, where OP
wanted a "silent" keyword like:
silent:
do_stuff()
would be equivalent to:
try: do_stuff() except: pass
Of course catching *all* exceptions was a bad idea, so I came up with
the code below and now I actually like it and use it myself :)
---------snip---------
To your first question about a "silenced" keyword: you could emulate
this with context managers I guess.
Something like (untested, just a quick mockup how it could look):
class silenced:
def __init__(self, *silenced):
self.exceptions=tuple(silenced) #just to be explicit
def __enter__(self):
return self #dito
def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback):
for ex in self.exceptions:
if isinstance(value, ex):
return True #supresses exception
So:
with silenced(os.Error):
os.remove(somefile)
Would translate to:
try:
os.remove(somefile)
except os.Error:
pass
One nice thing about this approach would be that you can alias a set of
exceptions with this:
idontcareabouttheseerrors=silenced(TypeError, ValueError, PEBCAKError,
SyntaxError, EndOfWorldError, 1D10T_Error)
with idontcareabouttheseerrors:
do_stuff()
Regards,
Michael
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
