Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!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 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'algorithm': 0.04; 'context': 0.07; 'finally:': 0.07; 'clause': 0.09; 'except:': 0.09; 'executes': 0.09; 'exist,': 0.09; 'jessica': 0.09; 'reached.': 0.09; 'try:': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'def': 0.12; 'jan': 0.12; 'wrote': 0.14; '"finally"': 0.16; '(true)': 0.16; 'clause.': 0.16; 'discussion.': 0.16; 'executed.': 0.16; 'received:72.5': 0.16; 'received:72.5.230': 0.16; 'received:72.5.230.103': 0.16; 'received:sender1.zohomail.com': 0.16; 'received:zohomail.com': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'return,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'seems': 0.21; '>>>': 0.22; 'appears': 0.22; 'code,': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'print': 0.22; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'exists': 0.24; 'mind.': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'this:': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'rest': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'raise': 0.29; 'code': 0.31; 'assert': 0.31; 'block,': 0.31; 'explained': 0.31; 'raised': 0.31; 'writes:': 0.31; 'this.': 0.32; 'run': 0.32; 'quite': 0.32; 'checking': 0.33; 'except': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'false': 0.36; 'keyword': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'example,': 0.37; 'so,': 0.37; 'rather': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'dave': 0.60; 'most': 0.60; 'from:charset:utf-8': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'first': 0.61; "you'll": 0.62; 'information': 0.63; 'happen': 0.63; 'chance': 0.65; 'finally': 0.65; 'finish': 0.65; 'within': 0.65; 'topic,': 0.81; 'truth': 0.81; 'returns.': 0.84; 'angel': 0.91 From: =?utf-8?B?R8O2a3R1xJ8=?= Kayaalp To: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Try-except-finally paradox References: <9314ac52-a2be-4382-94ef-2c291f32be1a@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 03:58:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Terry Reedy's message of "Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:26:05 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 2 Cc: python-list@python.org 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: 106 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1391223064 news.xs4all.nl 2858 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:50955 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:65169 X-Original-Bytes: 7004 Terry Reedy writes: I do not have any information on the topic, but I *imagine* that the when RETURN_VALUE opcode is evaluated within the context of an except block, it triggers a check for whether a corresponding finally block exists and should it exist, it is triggered, much like a callback. So, my *imaginary* algorithm works like this: return: if within an except block EB: if EB has a correspoinding final block FB run FB else do return else do return In Jessica's example, as the finally block executes a RETURN_VALUE opcode, and as this is *probably* a jump to the caller, the rest of the code does not get a chance to be executed. As I have said earlier, I by no means assert the truth of this idea I've explained here, but it seems quite reasonable to me. gk > On 1/30/2014 7:05 AM, Dave Angel wrote: >> Jessica Ross Wrote in message: >>> I found something like this in a StackOverflow discussion. >>>>>> def paradox(): >>> ... try: >>> ... raise Exception("Exception raised during try") >>> ... except: >>> ... print "Except after try" >>> ... return True >>> ... finally: >>> ... print "Finally" >>> ... return False >>> ... return None >>> ... >>>>>> return_val = paradox() >>> Except after try >>> Finally >>>>>> return_val >>> False >>> >>> I understand most of this. >>> What I don't understand is why this returns False rather than True. Does the finally short-circuit the return in the except block? >>> >> >> The finally has to happen before any return inside the try or the >> except. And once you're in the finally clause you'll finish it >> before resuming the except clause. Since it has a return, that >> will happen before the other returns. The one in the except block >> will never get reached. >> >> It's the only reasonable behavior., to my mind. > > Checking with the disassembled code, it appears that the except return > happens first and is then caught and the value over-written > > 2 0 SETUP_FINALLY 45 (to 48) > 3 SETUP_EXCEPT 16 (to 22) > > 3 6 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (Exception) > 9 LOAD_CONST 1 ('Exception raised during try') > 12 CALL_FUNCTION 1 (1 positional, 0 keyword pair) > 15 RAISE_VARARGS 1 > 18 POP_BLOCK > 19 JUMP_FORWARD 22 (to 44) > > 4 >> 22 POP_TOP > 23 POP_TOP > 24 POP_TOP > > 5 25 LOAD_GLOBAL 1 (print) > 28 LOAD_CONST 2 ('Except after try') > 31 CALL_FUNCTION 1 (1 positional, 0 keyword pair) > 34 POP_TOP > > 6 35 LOAD_CONST 3 (True) > 38 RETURN_VALUE > 39 POP_EXCEPT > 40 JUMP_FORWARD 1 (to 44) > 43 END_FINALLY > >> 44 POP_BLOCK > 45 LOAD_CONST 0 (None) > > 8 >> 48 LOAD_GLOBAL 1 (print) > 51 LOAD_CONST 4 ('Finally') > 54 CALL_FUNCTION 1 (1 positional, 0 keyword pair) > 57 POP_TOP > > 9 58 LOAD_CONST 5 (False) > 61 RETURN_VALUE > 62 END_FINALLY > > 10 63 LOAD_CONST 0 (None) > 66 RETURN_VALUE > > > > > -- > Terry Jan Reedy