On Sunday, May 23, 2021, 02:23:05 PM GMT+1, Shivam Saini
wrote:
>> Like the first example in which I am sending an log, which isn't important.
If the log is not important, then why are you sending it?
___
Python-ideas mailing list --
23.05.21 12:42, Shivam Saini пише:
> except:
> pass
Don't do this. Never write a bare except handler which does not re-raise
an exception. There are few exceptions of this rule, but it is unlikely
that you will see them in first years of your practice. It is an
anti-pattern, and a
23.05.21 16:22, Shivam Saini пише:
> After all, python is known for one liners
It is not Python that is known for one liners. Python syntax is rather
opposed to one liners. It encourages and sometimes forces a user to
write well-indented code.
___
On Sun, May 23, 2021, 12:02 PM Damian Shaw
wrote:
> FYI,
>
> Something very similar already exists in the standard library,
> contextlib.suppress:
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/contextlib.html#contextlib.suppress
>
> It makes a nice 2+ liner for a lot of situations:
>
> with
On Sun, May 23, 2021, 9:35 AM Stestagg wrote:
> FYI, default here is unused.
>
Thanks! Yes I had put that at the first and intended to remove it.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 2021-05-24 at 01:34:29 +1000,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 06:52:38PM +0530, Shivam Saini wrote:
>
> > After all, python is known for one liners and this would be an another
> > great one liner if implemented.
>
> Python isn't known for one-liners. You might be thinking
FYI,
Something very similar already exists in the standard library,
contextlib.suppress:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/contextlib.html#contextlib.suppress
It makes a nice 2+ liner for a lot of situations:
with suppress(Exception):
...
Seems more flexible than OPs keyword suggestion as
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 06:52:38PM +0530, Shivam Saini wrote:
> After all, python is known for one liners and this would be an another
> great one liner if implemented.
Python isn't known for one-liners. You might be thinking of Perl.
Being known for one-liners is a bad thing. It means that
FYI, default here is unused.
On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 14:29, Ricky Teachey via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> I think you can already do all of this with a custom exception-swallowing
> decorator function.
>
> Something like this:
>
> from functools import wraps
>
> def
That wont be an oneliner still. We can add decorator to a function, and
that don't even be very readable. If we can convert that decorator to an
inbuilt keyword that would work as an one liner and would be very readable
too.
On Sun, 23 May 2021, 18:56 Ricky Teachey, wrote:
> I think you can
I think you can already do all of this with a custom exception-swallowing
decorator function.
Something like this:
from functools import wraps
def swallow(*exceptions, default=Exception, result=None):
if not exceptions:
exceptions = Exception,
def decorator(func):
That's what I think it should be for.
I know safe open(...) isn't a really good example for this, but I had just
used that for demonstration purposes. Instead what I am saying is that
sometimes we just don't care even if an statement raises exception. Like
the first example in which I am sending
sounds very much like https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0463/#rejection-notice
I'm concerned with the `safe` defaulting to a bare `except:` which will also
catch CancelledError other errors that should be re-raised
also
```
file = safe open('some_file')
```
does not provide a way to
13 matches
Mail list logo
