On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:14 +1100, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett jimjjew...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't claim that syntax is perfect. I do think it is less flawed
than the no-parentheses (or external parentheses) versions:
(expr1
On 03/09/2014 07:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
because I cannot imagine reading an embedded version of either of those
without having to mentally re-parse at the colon. An example assuming
a precedence level that may not be what the PEP proposes:
if myfunc(5, expr1 except expr2: expr3,
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
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett jimjjew...@gmail.com 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
