5:15 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 08:22, Mitch wrote:
> >
> > If `except` is omitted, then catch the generic exception and do nothing
> and exit.
> >
>
> Not sure what you mean here. If you have a try-finally with no except
> clause, no exce
to be an opinion shared among the developers. I do
appreciate that this language is not changing nonstop beneath my feet, so
the inertia is frustratingly welcome.
-Mitch
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 3:06 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 04:03, Mitch wrote:
> > I'll ask the same
support ways to make the else clause more functional.
I might be persuaded that it feels nonsensical to have an "else" if there
is no "except", however... (because semantically if we haven't excepted
anything, there is nothing for "else" to stand against).
On Tue, Aug 1,
Is this a relevant argument (either way) here?
While I appreciate considering the applicability of the argument to
existing code is generally a good thing, I'm not sure that it makes sense
for cases like this where a logical outcome seems to be missing. If you can
try/finally and then implicitly
You know, after several years of following this list, and many more of
programming in Python, I don't know if I ever realized that forum
existed... or at least differed from the mailing lists. Thanks!
-Mitch
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 3:45 PM Barry wrote:
>
>
> On 12 May 2023,
You're not alone—it bothers me too! I try to use them as an example of why
I shouldn't obsess over all the details (a certain "hobgoblin" quote always
comes to mind), but I would *always* use the more consistent version if it
were to exist...
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 8:42 AM Matt del Valle wrote:
I *have* used @property to suggest that variables be read-only.
That said, I believe that using the (I believe fairly common) pattern of
defining a property as a no-op wrapper around a corresponding "private"
(single underscore) attribute tends to be a more pythonic solution to the
read-only
