On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> The PEP should therefore explicitly state that implementation details
> may force the deferral to be permanent, and that this is considered an
> acceptable trade-off.
How about words to this effect?
"""Should there be, in future, a way to c
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> On Fri Mar 7 20:54:31 CET 2014, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I don't see except expressions as fundamentally more associated with
>> if/else than with, say, an or chain, which works left to right.
>
> I do, because of the skipping portion.
>
> Sh
On Fri Mar 7 20:54:31 CET 2014, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
>> (Thu Mar 6 23:26:47 CET 2014) Chris Angelico responded:
>>> ...[as-capturing is] deferred until there's a non-closure means of
>>> creating a sub-scope.
>> The problem is that once
TL;DR:
expr except (default if exc_expr)
expr (except default if exc_expr)
expr except (exc_expr: default)
expr (except exc_expr: default)
(1) Group the exceptions with the default they imply.
(2) inline-":" still needs () or [] or {}.
(3) Consider the expression inside a lon
