On Thursday 13 May 2004 04:43, python-dev-request at python.org wrote: > It's important to read what people who have actually done it have to say > about subtleties. For example, your algorithm considered 'return' to be 'a > terminal instruction'. But what if it appeared in the 'try' clause of a > try/finally construct? In Python's PVM, most *possible* control flow is > implicit (virtually any opcode can raise an exception, and from there > "magically jump" to the code at an enclosing 'except' or 'finally' clause); > and even an unexceptional bare 'return' can magically jump to an enclosing > 'finally' block. The Java reference discusses these things, and anyone > intending to do something here is still strongly urged to read it. But just looking at some code here, is RETURN_VALUE ever inside a SETUP_EXCEPT block? The end of the SETUP_EXCEPT block apears to ABSOLUTE_JUMP past all the exception handlers to finally, and then to the RETURN_VALUE, which doesn't seem to fall under the protection of a try/except. I'm not saying there are no subtleties as you describe, I'm just trying to quantify some of them and wondering if this is one. -Michel
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