New submission from gd2shoe:
I'm constantly finding myself writing itty-bitty try blocks like such:
process stuff
try : someSubProcess.kill()
except : pass
process stuff
I realize this isn't a rigorous use of except, but it's good enough for a vast
majority of what I need it for. Still, it adds excess verbiage and makes code
slightly harder to read.
All I need except to do most of the time is suppress exceptions. I think the
language could be enhanced by making the except clause implicit.
the above would become:
process stuff
try : someSubProcess.kill()
process stuff
The intent remains clear. The code is cleaner and easier to read.
This does not happen often in rigorous code, but grep does find 3 counts in
standard modules and 9 counts in numpy. I'm certain most prototype code (like
mine) would greatly benefit. (My current 300 line project uses 4 so far.)
--
components: Interpreter Core
messages: 169326
nosy: gd2shoe
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Feature request, implicit "except : pass"
type: enhancement
versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.4
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15804>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com