Interest check in some delicious syntactic sugar for "except:pass"

[Oren Elrad]

Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner.

I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the
following syntactic sugar:

silence:
......... block

------------------------->

try:
.........block
except:
.........pass

The logic here is that there are a ton of "except: pass" statements[1]
floating around in code that do not need to be there. Meanwhile, the
potential keyword 'silence' does not appear to be in significant use
as a variable[2], or an alternative keyword might be imagined
('quiet', 'hush', 'stfu') but I somewhat like the verbiness of
'silence' since that is precisely what it does to the block (that is,
you have to inflect it as a verb, not a noun -- you are telling the
block to be silent). Finally, since this is the purest form of
syntactic sugar, I cannot fathom any parsing, interpreting or other
complications that would arise.

I appreciate any feedback, including frank statements that you'd
rather not trifle with such nonsense.

~Oren

[1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=except:\spass&hl=en
[2] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=silence+lang:py

 

[Lie Ryan]

Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner.

I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the
following syntactic sugar:

silence:
......... block

------------------------->

try:
.........block
except:
.........pass

The logic here is that there are a ton of "except: pass" statements[1]
floating around in code that do not need to be there. Meanwhile, the
potential keyword 'silence' does not appear to be in significant use
as a variable[2], or an alternative keyword might be imagined
('quiet', 'hush', 'stfu') but I somewhat like the verbiness of
'silence' since that is precisely what it does to the block (that is,
you have to inflect it as a verb, not a noun -- you are telling the
block to be silent). Finally, since this is the purest form of
syntactic sugar, I cannot fathom any parsing, interpreting or other
complications that would arise.

Given that python HATE bare-except (and `pass`-block bare except is even
worse) and given python's idiosyncrasies "There should be one-- and
preferably only one --obvious way to do it", "Errors should never pass
silently"; the chance for `silence` keyword is precisely zero.

I appreciate any feedback, including frank statements that you'd
rather not trifle with such nonsense.

There are lots of reason why bare-except is bad, one being is that it
makes it way too easy to ignore errors that you don't actually want to
silence; and given that bare-excepts would prevent Ctrl+C (Interrupt)
from working. Sorry, but IMHO we shouldn't make syntax sugar for bad
practices.

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Oren Elrad a écrit :

Howdy all, longtime appreciative user, first time mailer-inner.

I'm wondering if there is any support (tepid better than none) for the
following syntactic sugar:

silence:
........ block

------------------------->

try:
........block
except:
........pass

Hopefully not.

The logic here is that there are a ton of "except: pass" statements[1]
floating around in code that do not need to be there.

s/do not need to be/NEVER should have been at first/