On 2005-10-27, Sori Schwimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that would be useful to have an improved
> version of the "try" statement, as follows:
>
> try(retrys=0,timeout=0):
> # things to try
> except:
> # what to do if failed
>
> and having the following semantic:
>
> for i in range(retrys):
> try:
> # things to try
> except:
> if i < retrys:
> i += 1
> sleep(timeout)
> else:
> # what to do if failed
> else:
> break
The "i += 1" line is almost certainly wrong.
> Of course, "break" may be the last statement in the
> "try" branch, and "try"'s "else" may be ommited
> completely.
And that's pretty much exactly how I usually write it:
for i in range(retries):
try:
whatever
break
except retryableExceptionList:
sleep(delay)
> Can't think of a syntax to keep it look like a statement
> rather than a function.
>
> Opinions?
I don't see what's wrong with the for loop construct.
You can add an else: clause to the for loop to detect the case
where you ran out of retries:
for i in range(retries):
try:
whatever
break
except retryableExceptionList:
sleep(delay)
else:
whatelse
> Is it worth for a PEP?
I don't think you can come up with a syntax that is really that
much better than the for loop, but give it a go if you like.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My BIOLOGICAL ALARM
at CLOCK just went off... It
visi.com has noiseless DOZE FUNCTION
and full kitchen!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
