Dmitry Dvoinikov wrote:
> Now, back to original question then, do you think it'd be
> beneficial to have some sort of exception ignoring or expecting
> statement ?
Not really - as I said earlier, I usually have something non-trivial
in the except or else clause, so I'm not simply ignoring the exc
> It was possible in PEP 340 and in early drafts of PEP 346, but it
> isn't possible in PEP 343.
> In PEP 343, the statement template *cannot* suppress exceptions - it
> can react to them, and it can turn them into different exceptions, but
> that's all.
...doing homework...
The following code,
Paul Du Bois wrote:
> If I understand PEP 343 correctly, it allows for easy implementation
> of part of your request. It doesn't implement the else: clause, but
> you don't give a use case for it either.
>
> class ignored_exceptions(object):
>def __init__(self, *exceptions):
>self.exce
> If you're trying to write tests, perhaps a better use-case would be
> something like:
> with required_exception(SomeError):
> do something that should cause SomeError
Yes, you are right, that'd be a better and more flexible way,
thank you.
Sincerely,
Dmitry Dvoinikov
http://www.targeted.or
On 6/20/05, Dmitry Dvoinikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse me if I couldn't find that in the existing PEPs, but
> wouldn't that be useful to have a construct that explicitly
> tells that we know an exception of specific type could happen
> within a block, like:
> ignore TypeError:
> do s
Excuse me if I couldn't find that in the existing PEPs, but
wouldn't that be useful to have a construct that explicitly
tells that we know an exception of specific type could happen
within a block, like:
--
ignore TypeError:
do stuff
[else:
do other stuff]
