On 28 Mar 2002 at 8:29, Guido van Rossum wrote: > One other, more practical reason to like the rule: > "except Exception:" would become equivalent to > "except:". The advantage is that you can then > write "except Exception, e:" and catch the exception > instance in a local variable without having to call > sys.exc_info(). Which, to my mind, is sufficient to justify the rule. Hmm. If the rule were (eventually) strictly enforced, could we get the C++-style "stack allocated object whose destructor releases the resource" trick working? (Which would allow killing off the recurrent "with" / "using" thread.) -- Gordon http://www.mcmillan-inc.com/
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