Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path: <rosuav@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.021
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.96; '*S*': 0.00; 'nested': 0.07; 'wrapped': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'axle': 0.16; 'broken.': 0.16; 'flags,': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'nesting': 0.16; 'ought': 0.16; 'sorts': 0.16; 'throw': 0.16; 'which,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'code.': 0.18; 'wed,': 0.18; 'programming': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'fixed.': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'subject:/': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'point': 0.28; 'am,': 0.29; "doesn't": 0.30; 'label': 0.30; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'lines': 0.31; 'usually': 0.31; 'piece': 0.31; 'themselves': 0.32; 'open': 0.33; 'cases': 0.33; 'advice': 0.35; 'board': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'done': 0.36; "didn't": 0.36; 'half': 0.37; 'needed': 0.38; "you're": 0.61; 'soon': 0.63; 'different': 0.65; 'six': 0.68; 'yourself': 0.78; 'right!': 0.84; 'subject:try': 0.84; 'edwards': 0.91; 'to:none': 0.92; 'reducing': 0.93
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=h/ddii/v3VHEXpakuJAtLb4PyRyflxDPiEarQsJ0IN8=; b=bFrvOVMMAuNNDLxm4Wq19cgsztj9Xhtcl3tQ3K8alKkoLSjbdnp68gaB3/w/iJNjVz Ivpe3DVW9kG5xumBPQzuhWFL+6lmbwEtjpDWRuetPW5xlqDC15g1G0GCodTxMHbCmaKZ 1WTn3+gwqCaSLyRdI/4VpBYdFpGUsaS67tjS8HwHRvYDaOIwTg7V4HqGrWq72Bc0pvtW 3ZUWzsEHOkPc9JZR3moegedxJh7gtjeVwvAB6oxgvYkL7c+Ixr8I75jiu3HNRpy2nV21 li5aDDYW45C36AmQH0YccjA2m241BTlp5UaCM0X+Q1gXaw73UY8VcrMcSB8ObSUt+XQM SPfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.230.101 with SMTP id sx5mr23006897vec.10.1402432621771; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ln7jua$31r$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <0a89c96d-de62-42ad-be48-6107ce10d215@googlegroups.com> <roy-04A043.13393106062014@news.panix.com> <e2f76f44-8e3f-4ba0-9530-0d9d1b2bfdb4@googlegroups.com> <lmt0tc$4di$1@ger.gmane.org> <539396F3.5090508@stoneleaf.us> <mailman.10867.1402184850.18130.python-list@python.org> <2e94b972-a630-4190-bc33-1074eb3278e3@googlegroups.com> <ln6c16$3el$1@r01.glglgl.de> <mailman.10966.1402424068.18130.python-list@python.org> <ln7jua$31r$1@reader1.panix.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:37:01 +1000
Subject: Re: try/except/finally
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.10972.1402432630.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace: 1402432630 news.xs4all.nl 2852 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:55154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:73122

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I've seen some amazingly convoluted C code where people got themselves
> wrapped around the axle six different ways in order to avoid using
> "goto fail" or "goto retry".  Invariably I was looking at the code
> because it didn't work right and needed to be fixed.  Usually the
> addition of a 'fail' label and a few gotos allowed me to throw out all
> sorts of complexly nested if/else blocks, status flags, and
> unnecessary while loops.  Usually you can reduce the number of lines
> of code (sometimes by half or more) while also reducing the number and
> nesting of control structures.  And when you're done it works right!

Yeah. As soon as you take on board a hard-and-fast rule, you open
yourself up to stupid cases where the rule ought to have been broken.
I don't know a single piece of programming advice which, if taken as
an inviolate rule, doesn't at some point cause suboptimal code.

ChrisA