[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Commited in r64121. -- status: open - closed ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3021 ___

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Guido has given the go ahead on this. I will apply in about 8 hours (after some sleep). -- assignee: - benjamin.peterson resolution: - accepted ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I agree, the argument for a syntax error is weak. It's more instinct than anything else. I don't think I'd be able to convince you unless Guido had the same instinct I do. ;) ___ Python tracker [EMAIL

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Here is a newer patch that also adapts the behaviour of finally blocks as suggested by Adam Olsen. Note that I had to change some things in the way 'with' statements are compiled and executed. Added file:

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: PEP 3134's implicit exception chaining (if accepted) would require your semantic, and your semantic is simpler anyway (even if the implementation is non-trivial), so consider my objections to be dropped. PEP 3134 also proposes implicit chaining

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: With or without my patch, bare raise inside a finally statement raises a RuntimeError: no active exception to re-raise. (except, of course, when the try/finally is itself enclosed in an except block) That's because a finally block is not

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: PEP 3134 gives reason to change it. __context__ should be set from whatever exception is active from the try/finally, thus it should be the inner block, not the outer except block. This flipping of behaviour, and the general ambiguity, is why I

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Ok, it makes sense to have the same behaviour for except and finally blocks then. As for the syntax error, I'm still not convinced. The point of Py3k is to change semantics: people should expect some incompatible changes. Also the previous

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Changes by Adam Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- nosy: +Rhamphoryncus ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3021 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue3021] Lexical exception handlers

Changes by Benjamin Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue3021 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list