On Wed, Mar 20, 2002, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Aahz]
>>
>> May I suggest yet one more alteration:
>>
>> try:
>> ...code...
>> except (KeyboardInterrupt,SystemExit):
>> raise
>> except:
>> ...handler...
>
> Not unless you want to run around editing hundreds of modules. To quote
> someone who shall remain anonymous:
>
> The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise,
> readable classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of
> clear code -- not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to
> death.
How many bare except: clauses that should be bare are there? To my way
of thinking, requiring the above construct on top of a bare except: is
precisely the kind of wart we wish to encourage in order to *dis*courage
bare except: clauses. In any event, it was Guido's idea to add the
except KeyboardInterrupt:
in the first place; I'm simply adding the logical extension. Perhaps
instead of the StandardError idea suggested by others, we should add a
new exception called ExitException that inherits from both SystemExit
and KeyboardInterrupt.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but
to post the wrong information. --Aahz
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