Guido van Rossum wrote: > [Guido] > >>>An alternative that solves this would be to give __next__() a second >>>argument, which is a bool that should be true when the first argument >>>is an exception that should be raised. What do people think? >>> >>>I'll add this to the PEP as an alternative for now. > > > [Nick] > >>An optional third argument (raise=False) seems a lot friendlier (and more >>flexible) than a typecheck. > > > I think I agree, especially since Phillip's alternative (a different > method) is even worse IMO. > The extra argument works for me as well. > >>Yet another alternative would be for the default behaviour to be to raise >>Exceptions, and continue with anything else, and have the third argument be >>"raise_exc=True" and set it to False to pass an exception in without raising it. > > > You've lost me there. If you care about this, can you write it up in > more detail (with code samples or whatever)? Or we can agree on a 2nd > arg to __next__() (and a 3rd one to next()). > Channeling Nick, I think he is saying that the raising argument should be made True by default and be named 'raise_exc'. -Brett
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