On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 9:17:16 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote: > On 04/10/2015 10:38 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 7:53:31 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote: > >> On 04/10/2015 09:42 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 05:31 am, sohcahtoa82 wrote: > >>> > >>>> It isn't document because it is expected. Why would the exception get > >>>> caught if you're not writing code to catch it? If you write a function > >>>> and pass it a tuple of exceptions to catch, I'm not sure why you would > >>>> expect it to catch an exception not in the tuple. Just because the tuple > >>>> is empty doesn't mean that it should catch *everything* instead. That > >>>> would be counter-intuitive. > >>> > >>> Really? I have to say, I expected it. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I'm astounded at your expectation. That's like saying a for loop on an > >> empty list ought to loop on all possible objects in the universe. > > > > To work, this analogy should also have two python syntaxes like this: > > > > "Normal" for-loop: > > for var in iterable: > > suite > > > > "Empty" for-loop: > > for: > > suite > > > > That tells me nothing about your opinions. What did you mean by the > phrase "to work"?
Your analogy is "for loop on an empty list ought to loop on all possible objects in the universe" This seemingly works as a demo of a ridiculous expectation because there is only one pattern of for-loop for var in iterable: In the case of exceptions we have two patterns except e-tuple: and except: with the second having a wildly different semantics from the first -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
