RetroSearch Browse

Thu May 12 09:29:18 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053649.html

Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com> writes:

> [Steven Bethard]
>> I have a feeling that it might actually be easier to continue to
>> document try/except and try/finally separately and then just give the
>> semantics of try/except/finally in terms of the other semantics.  Take
>> a look at the Java Language Specification[1] (pages 399-401) if you
>> want to see how nastly documenting try/except/finally can get.  And
>> they don't even have an else clause! ;-)
>
> Fine with me.
>
> Can I go ahead and approve this now 

While I see the cost of this PEP being pretty small, I see the benefit
the same way too.

> before someone proposes to add a new keyword?

Heh.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  If i don't understand lisp, it would be wise to not bray about
  how lisp is stupid or otherwise criticize, because my stupidity
  would be archived and open for all in the know to see.
                                                -- Xah, comp.lang.lisp

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-May/053649.html below:

[Python-Dev] Pre-PEP: Unifying try-except and try-finally