Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'syntax': 0.04; 'subject:missing': 0.07; 'clause': 0.09; 'except:': 0.09; 'from:addr:ethan': 0.09; 'from:addr:stoneleaf.us': 0.09; 'from:name:ethan furman': 0.09; 'message-id:@stoneleaf.us': 0.09; 'occasionally': 0.09; 'undefined': 0.09; '~ethan~': 0.09; 'behaviour.': 0.16; 'received:67.18.44': 0.16; 'violation.': 0.16; 'subject:python': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'typical': 0.24; 'defined': 0.27; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'point': 0.28; 'gives': 0.31; 'exceptions': 0.31; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'right?': 0.36; 'yield': 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'being': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'tell': 0.60; 'received:173': 0.61; 'results': 0.69; 'legal': 0.71; 'bare': 0.84; 'everything.': 0.84; 'subject:here': 0.84 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 23:08:06 -0800 From: Ethan Furman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: buggy python interpretter or am I missing something here? References: <52E5E8F9.7000001@islandtraining.com> <52e5ffcd$0$29510$862e30e2@ngroups.net> In-Reply-To: <52e5ffcd$0$29510$862e30e2@ngroups.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3304.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - python.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - stoneleaf.us X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 173.12.184.233 X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([173.12.184.233]) [173.12.184.233]:49765 X-Source-Auth: ethan+stoneleaf.us X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: dG9idWs7dG9idWs7Z2F0b3IzMzA0Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1390807885 news.xs4all.nl 2901 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44886 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:64843 On 01/26/2014 10:42 PM, me wrote: > > My point of contention isn't so much about what specific syntax I should > be using as much as it is about being allowed to use a syntax that gives > erroneous results without triggering a syntax violation. If the bare > except: clause is syntactically legal then it should yield deterministic > results based on a well defined language specification, right? It's > looking very much like "except:" is undefined behaviour. There is nothing undefined about it. `except:` catches everything. Occasionally there is a good reason to do it that way, but under typical circumstances you tell 'except' which exceptions you are prepared to deal with. -- ~Ethan~