Suggestion for (re)try statement

[Sori Schwimmer]

Hi,

I think that would be useful to have an improved
version of the "try" statement, as follows:

try(retrys=0,ti meout=0):
# things to try
except:
# what to do if failed

and having the following semantic:

for i in range(retrys):
try:
# things to try
except:
if i < retrys:
i += 1
sleep(timeout)
else:
# what to do if failed
else:
break

Of course, "break" may be the last statement in the
"try" branch, and "try"'s "else" may be ommited
completely.

Can't think of a syntax to keep it look like a
statement rather than a function.

Opinions? Is it worth for a PEP?

Sorin

_______________ _______________ ____
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

Sori Schwimmer wrote:

Hi,

I think that would be useful to have an improved
version of the "try" statement, as follows:

try(retrys=0,ti meout=0): <snip> sleep(timeout)

<snip>

At the very least, "timeout" is the wrong wording, "delay" would be more
appropriate. A timeout is usually associated with starting a task and
waiting for it to complete, and continuing if it fails to complete in a
given timeframe, typically also aborting the task at the same time (ie.
executing a database query, connecting to a server, waiting for an
event/lock, etc.).

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vk arlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2

[Rocco Moretti]

Sori Schwimmer wrote:

Hi,

I think that would be useful to have an improved
version of the "try" statement, as follows:

try(retrys=0,ti meout=0):
# things to try
except:
# what to do if failed

and having the following semantic:

for i in range(retrys):
try:
# things to try
except:
if i < retrys:
i += 1
sleep(timeout)
else:
# what to do if failed
else:
break

The gold standard for language syntax changes is "compelling use cases"
- if introduced, how often will the construct be used? Is there a python
program out there (preferably in the standard library) which would be
*markedly* improved by the change? What is so repugnant about the
equivalent, currently valid way of writing it? -- Hypothetical and
theoretical arguments don't carry much weight in the Python community
("Practicali ty beats purity" and all that.)

And remember - your goal isn't ultimately to convince me or someother
person on comp.lang.pytho n, it's to convince Guido.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2005-10-27, Sori Schwimmer <sx***@yahoo.co m> wrote:

Hi,

I think that would be useful to have an improved
version of the "try" statement, as follows:

try(retrys=0,ti meout=0):
# things to try
except:
# what to do if failed

and having the following semantic:

for i in range(retrys):
try:
# things to try
except:
if i < retrys:
i += 1
sleep(timeout)
else:
# what to do if failed
else:
break
The "i += 1" line is almost certainly wrong.
Of course, "break" may be the last statement in the
"try" branch, and "try"'s "else" may be ommited
completely.
And that's pretty much exactly how I usually write it:

for i in range(retries):
try:
whatever
break
except retryableExcept ionList:
sleep(delay)
Can't think of a syntax to keep it look like a statement
rather than a function.

Opinions?
I don't see what's wrong with the for loop construct.
You can add an else: clause to the for loop to detect the case
where you ran out of retries:

for i in range(retries):
try:
whatever
break
except retryableExcept ionList:
sleep(delay)
else:
whatelse
Is it worth for a PEP?

I don't think you can come up with a syntax that is really that
much better than the for loop, but give it a go if you like.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My BIOLOGICAL ALARM
at CLOCK just went off... It
visi.com has noiseless DOZE FUNCTION
and full kitchen!!