On 8/15/05, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An argument _for_ TerminatingException as a class is that I can
> define my own subclasses of TerminatingException without forcing
> it to being a subclass of KeyboardInterrupt or SystemExit.
And how would that help you? Would your own e
Toby Dickenson wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
> satisfied by having a TerminatingExceptions tuple (in the exceptions
> module?). It makes sense to express the classification of except
On 8/15/05, Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> > -1 on replacing "except (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit)" with "except
> > TerminatingException".
>
> The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
> s
OK, I will take this as BDFL pronouncement that ditching bare
'except's is just not going to happen. Had to try. =)
And I will strip out the TerminatingException proposal.
-Brett
On 8/15/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with Raymond here.
>
> On 8/15/05, Raymond Hettinger
I'm with Raymond here.
On 8/15/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Brett]
> > This obviously goes against what Guido last said he
> > wanted, but I hope I can convince him to get rid of bare 'except's.
>
> -1 on eliminating bare excepts. This unnecessarily breaks tons of code
> w
On Monday 15 August 2005 14:16, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> -1 on replacing "except (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit)" with "except
> TerminatingException".
The rationale for including TerminatingException in the PEP would also be
satisfied by having a TerminatingExceptions tuple (in the exceptio
> > It is completely Pythonic to have bare keywords
> > apply a useful default as an aid to readability and ease of coding.
[Oleg]
>Bare "while:" was rejected because of "while WHAT?!". Bare
"except:"
> does not cause "except WHAT?!" reaction. Isn't it funny?! (-:
It's both funny and interest
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:16:47AM -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> It is completely Pythonic to have bare keywords
> apply a useful default as an aid to readability and ease of coding.
Bare "while:" was rejected because of "while WHAT?!". Bare "except:"
does not cause "except WHAT?!" reaction
[Brett]
> This obviously goes against what Guido last said he
> wanted, but I hope I can convince him to get rid of bare 'except's.
-1 on eliminating bare excepts. This unnecessarily breaks tons of code
without offering ANY compensating benefits. There are valid use cases
for this construct. It
