On 03/03/2010 08:27 PM, 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 that there are a ton of "except: pass" statements[1] > floating around in code that do not need to be there. Meanwhile, the > potential keyword 'silence' does not appear to be in significant use > as a variable[2], or an alternative keyword might be imagined > ('quiet', 'hush', 'stfu') but I somewhat like the verbiness of > 'silence' since that is precisely what it does to the block (that is, > you have to inflect it as a verb, not a noun -- you are telling the > block to be silent). Finally, since this is the purest form of > syntactic sugar, I cannot fathom any parsing, interpreting or other > complications that would arise.
Given that python HATE bare-except (and `pass`-block bare except is even worse) and given python's idiosyncrasies "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it", "Errors should never pass silently"; the chance for `silence` keyword is precisely zero. > I appreciate any feedback, including frank statements that you'd > rather not trifle with such nonsense. There are lots of reason why bare-except is bad, one being is that it makes it way too easy to ignore errors that you don't actually want to silence; and given that bare-excepts would prevent Ctrl+C (Interrupt) from working. Sorry, but IMHO we shouldn't make syntax sugar for bad practices. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list