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,timeout=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

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=]

Hi,

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

try(retrys=0,timeout=0):

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.).

 

[Rocco Moretti]

Hi,

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

try(retrys=0,timeout=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
("Practicality beats purity" and all that.)

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

 

[Grant Edwards]

Hi,

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

try(retrys=0,timeout=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 retryableExceptionList:
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 retryableExceptionList:
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.