Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-04 Thread Bruno Desthuilliers
Oren Elrad a écrit : Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try: block except: pass Hopefully not.

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Chris Rebert
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Oren Elrad orenel...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try:

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Dave Angel
Oren Elrad wrote: Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try: block except: pass The logic here is

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Andre Engels
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Oren Elrad orenel...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try:

Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Oren Elrad
To all that responded, thanks for the prompt response folks, your criticisms are well taken. Coming from Cland, one is inculcated with the notion that if the programmer wants to shoot himself in the foot the language ought not to prevent that (or even should return him a loaded magnum with the

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Tim Chase
Oren Elrad wrote: I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try: block except: pass The general response to except: pass from the Old Ones on the python list (and those

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Benjamin Kaplan
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Oren Elrad orenel...@gmail.com wrote: To all that responded, thanks for the prompt response folks, your criticisms are well taken. Coming from Cland, one is inculcated with the notion that if the programmer wants to shoot himself in the foot the language ought

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Daniel Fetchinson
By way of motivation, I wrote that email after copying/pasting the following a few times around a project until I wrote it into def SilentlyDelete() and its cousin SilentlyRmdir() code involving somefile try: os.remove(somefile) except: ...pass # The bloody search

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Tim Chase
Oren Elrad wrote: code involving somefile try: os.remove(somefile) except: ...pass # The bloody search indexer has got the file and I can't delete it. Nothing to be done. I admit there are times I've done something similar, usually with what I call my int0 and float0

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Michael Rudolf
Am 03.03.2010 12:47, schrieb Oren Elrad: code involving somefile try: os.remove(somefile) except: ...pass # The bloody search indexer has got the file and I can't delete it. Nothing to be done. You don't know that what you stated in your comment is true. All you know is that

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread MRAB
Oren Elrad wrote: Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try: block except: pass The logic here is

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Mel
Tim Chase wrote: I admit there are times I've done something similar, usually with what I call my int0 and float0 utility functions which roughly translate to give me a stinkin' int/float and if something goes wrong, give me 0, but the return result better darn well be an int/float!

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:47:28 -0500, Oren Elrad wrote: With that said, let me at least offer a token defense of my position. By way of motivation, I wrote that email after copying/pasting the following a few times around a project until I wrote it into def SilentlyDelete() and its cousin

Re: Re Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Terry Reedy
On 3/3/2010 6:47 AM, Oren Elrad wrote: With that said, let me at least offer a token defense of my position. By way of motivation, I wrote that email after copying/pasting the following a few times around a project until I wrote it into def SilentlyDelete() and its cousin SilentlyRmdir() code

Re: Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for except:pass

2010-03-03 Thread Rhodri James
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:27:16 -, Oren Elrad orenel...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner. I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the following syntactic sugar: silence: block - try: