This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pje
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, jhylton, pje, rhettinger, terry.reedy
Date 2008-12-13.00:37:21
SpamBayes Score 4.46009e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
I could argue either way on this one; it's true that deleting a
nested-scope variable is sometimes desirable, but it also seems to me
like closing over an except: variable is a Potentially Bad Idea.

In neither case, however, do I think it's appropriate to drop the
temporary nature of the variable.  I could perhaps get behind resetting
the variable to None instead of deleting it, but of course the PEP would
need changing.  There's also a question of whether we should do the same
thing with "with ... as" variables.

(Btw, I'm not sure why this one's assigned to me; ISTM I might have
proposed the current except/as GC semantics, but I'm not familiar with
the actual implementation in 2.6 or 3.0)
Date User Action Args
2008-12-13 00:37:23pjesetrecipients: + pje, jhylton, rhettinger, terry.reedy, amaury.forgeotdarc
2008-12-13 00:37:23pjesetmessageid: <>
2008-12-13 00:37:22pjelinkissue4617 messages
2008-12-13 00:37:22pjecreate