At 10:16 PM 6/2/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote: >On 2 jun 2005, at 22:12, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > > At 10:04 PM 6/2/2005 +0200, Eric Nieuwland wrote: > >> I was thinking about 'try EXPR [as VAR]:' as a 'try' that handles > >> uncaught exceptions by forwarding it to EXPR's __exit__ method. No > >> confusion with me. > > > > No doubt. However, it's not obvious what happens to an exception in > > EXPR; surely it can't be passed to EXPR's __exit__ method. So, is it > > handled by the try, or does it pass out of the block? Whichever > > answer you give, there is somebody who will think the opposite. And > > this is precisely the ambiguity I've been talking about. > > > > In contrast, a 'with' unmixed with 'try' is absolutely unambiguous as > > to which except: clauses handle what exceptions where. > ><slap forehead> I never thought of that! Now I see what you mean. >I could only save my idea by stating "the scope of 'try' only starts >after the ':'", but that seems too artificial. That's what I mean: if you have to solve it by decree, it becomes a rule that people have to *remember* (or at least read carefully and think about it), which goes against the "executable pseudocode" nature.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4