RetroSearch Browse

Sun Oct 13 06:24:43 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129512.html

On 12Oct2013 15:27, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>     .  break_on reads just fine to me, although leave_on is probably better.
> 
> Sorry, these are both really bad.

I agree.

> I've user tested ignore() and had good results.
> It makes the intention of the code very clear.

I think it is good also. I would also be happy with:

  ignore_exception

for greater explicitness or, perhaps better for Ethan's camp:

  discard_exception

But we've got "ignore" in play already. Can't we accept that it is
somewhat evocative though clearly not perfect for everyone, and
move on?

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au>

Once a Junior Programmer interrupted a Great Guru of the Sun to ask a
Question of no importance. The Great Guru replied in words which the Junior
Programmer did not understand. The Junior Programmer sought to rephrase the
Question, saying, "Stop me if I appear stupid." The great Guru, without
speaking, reached over and pressed L1-A.
The Junior Programmer achieved Enlightenment.   - Jon Green

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129512.html below:

[Python-Dev] cpython: Rename contextlib.ignored() to contextlib.ignore().