Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >Unless this new proposal also includes changing the meaning of
>> "except:" to "except Error".
> It's worth debating. OT1H, it's a semantic different for Python 2.x
> (although +1 on the idea for Py3K).
I was speaking of Py3K here, yes.
> Going along with that, maybe the interpreter should do something
> different when an Exception that's not an Error reaches the top
> (e.g. not print a traceback if KeyboardInterrupt is seen --
> we usually just catch that, print "Interrupted" and exit).
SystemExit is already special-cased, as far as I can tell. KeyboardInterrupt
could be in fact be special cased as well (I saw many Python newbies -- but
otherwise experienced -- being disgusted at first when they interrupt their
code with CTRL+C: they expect the program to exit "almost silently").
>> Also, under this new proposal, we could even remove
>> Exception from the builtins namespace in Py3k. It's almost
>> always wrong to use it, and if you really really need it, it's
>> spelled exceptions.Exception.
> I'm not sure I'd go as far as hiding Exception, since I don't think the
> penalty is that great and it makes it easier to document.
The situation (in Py3k) I was thinking is when people see this code:
except:
# something
and want to change it so to get a name to the exception object. I *think* many
could get confused and write:
except Exception, e:
# something
which changes the meaning. It "sounds" correct, but it's wrong. Of course, it's
easy to argue that "Exception" is just that, and people actually meant "Error".
In a way, the current PEP352 is superior here because it makes harder to do the
"bad" thing by giving it a complex name (BaseException).
Giovanni Bajo
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
