[Brett] > The problem with existing code checking for this situation is that the > situation itself is not the same as it will be if bare 'except's > change:: > > try: > ... > except: > ... > except TerminatingException: > ... > > has never really been possible before, but will be if the PEP goes > forward. That's not an improvement. The above code fragment should trigger a gag reflex indicating that something is wrong with the proposed default for a bare except. > Having a catch-all for > exceptions that a bare 'except' will skip that is more explicit than > ``except BaseException`` seems reasonable to me. The data gathered by Jack and Steven's research indicate that the number of cases where TerminatingException would be useful is ZERO. Try not to introduce a new builtin that no one will ever use. Try not to add a new word whose only function is to replace a two-word tuple (TOOWTDI). Try not to unnecessarily nest the tree (FITBN). Try not to propose solutions to problems that don't exist (PBP). Raymond
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