On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > So, having been convinced that "ignore" was the wrong choice of name, > reviewing the docs made it clear to me what the name *should* be. >From the point of view of code *outside* a block, the error is indeed suppressed. But, as one of those examples actually points out, what's happening from the POV *inside* the block is that the exception is "trapped". So using "suppress" creates an ambiguity: are we suppressing these errors *inside* the block, or *outside* the block? The way it actually works is errors are suppressed from the code *surrounding* the block, but the word can equally be interpreted as suppressing errors *inside* the block, in exactly the same way that "ignore" can be misread. So, if we're going with words that have precedent in the doc, the term "trap", as used here: > "If an exception is trapped merely in order to log it or to perform > some action (rather than to suppress it entirely), the generator must > reraise that exception." is the only one used to describe the POV from inside the block, where the error is... well, being trapped. ;-) It is a more apt description of what actually happens, even if it's only usable for the specific use case where an exception is trapped in order to suppress it.
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