On 13 October 2013 22:34, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:57:09 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For the record, this thread did prompt me to consider the new construct >> anew, but on reflection, I still consider it a reasonable addition to >> contextlib. >> >> It substantially improves the simple cases it is intended to help with, >> and, if anything, makes overly broad exception suppression *more* obviously >> dubious (because the name of the construct doesn't match the consequences >> for multi-line suites). > > Why? Anyone can still write "try ... except". > > The only sticking point for this construct is that it allows to save > one or two lines in rather uncommon cases (because most of the time you > should do something on an exception, not "ignore" it). The saving is > not worth it. > > Basically instead of: > > try: > # something > except FooException: > pass > > You write: > > from contextlib import ignore > with ignore(FooException): > # something > > There's actually more typing involved, and one more API to know about... > It is just another case of those "one-liners" that we generally refrain > from adding to the stdlib.
It meets my threshold for inclusion (albeit only just). Your objection has been noted. I still do not agree. Now, can you please just let the matter drop? That's the way this works (unless you think this is such a disastrous addition that you want to appeal to Guido to strip me of my responsibilities as contextlib maintainer and go hunting for a new one). Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
