On 3/19/2010 5:20 PM, Michael Foord wrote: > On 20/03/2010 00:19, Glenn Linderman wrote: >> On 3/19/2010 5:18 PM, Michael Foord wrote: >>>>>> will probably get you buggy results, somehow or another. That's what >>>>>> > design, code reviews, and testing are for. >>>>> We'll have to "agree to disagree" then. If you want error >>>>> silencing by default, >>>>> Python is not the language you are looking for. >>>> >>>> We can agree to disagree, if you like. But taken to the limit, the >>>> Zen you quoted would prevent the try except clause from being used. >>> >>> No, that is what "unless explicitly silenced" means - you are >>> proposing to silence them *without* an explicit try except clause. >>> >>> Michael >> >> Who, me? The containment checking code would contain the try/except, >> I was proposing. > > Explicit by the programmer. That is what explicit means... Caught and > silenced for you by Python is implicit. Should I really believe that there are no try/except clauses in the Python source code (nor their C equivalent, if (errno == blahblahblah) ... )? I mean, I haven't read very much of the source code... but that statement makes me want to download and grep... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100319/adb13467/attachment.html>
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