On Sat, Apr 23, 2005, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > In light of Alex's comments, I'd actually like to suggest the below as a > potential new definition for PEP 310 (making __exit__ optional, and adding > an __else__ handler): > > if hasattr(x, '__enter__'): > x.__enter__() > try: > try: > # Contents of 'with' block > except: > if hasattr(x, '__except__'): > if not x.__except__(*sys.exc_info()): # [1] > raise > else: > raise > else: > if hasattr(x, '__else__'): > x.__else__() > finally: > if hasattr(x, '__exit__'): > x.__exit__() +1, but prior to reading this post I was thinking along similar lines with your __exit__ named __finally__ and your __else__ named __exit__. My reasoning for that is that most of the time, people want their exit condition aborted if an exception is raised; having the "normal" exit routine called __else__ would be confusing except to people who do lots of exception handling. (I'm a bit sensitive to that right now; this week I wasted an hour because I didn't understand exceptions as well as I thought I did, although it was related more to the precise mechanics of raising and catching exceptions. Perhaps I'll submit a doc bug; I didn't find this explained in _Learning Python_ or Nutshell...) -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
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