Steve Holden wrote: >> On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 14:00, Gregory Piñero wrote: >> >>> Not quite because if something(3) fails, I still want something(4) to >>> run. > Then the obvious extension: > > for i in range(20): > ... > > but I get the idea that Gregory was thinking of different statements > rather than calls to the same function with different arguments.
Sorry for the descendant-reply, but the original hasn't hit my news server yet (I think). It sounds like Gregory wants a Python equivalent of "on error continue next," which is really a bad idea almost everywhere. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
