EAFP vs LBYL (was Re: A little disappointed so far)

[Gerhard Häring]

Carl Banks wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> 
>>Bare except is definitely NOT what I'm advocating, of course.  I don't
>>think I've ever caught anything broader than StandardError in production
>>code, actually (except in weird cases to accomodate 'host code' that
>>might be raising strings, was specifically untrusted, and the like) --
>>and when I do catch so widely is typically one of the few cases where
>>I'll use isinstance, in order to reraise at once if I've happened to
>>catch a KeyboardInterrupt (why the [expletive deleted] KeyboardInterrupt
>>couldn't have been taken away from the part of the subtree derived from
>>StandardError, I definitely dunno).
>  
> Out of curiosity, why not do this?
> 
>     try:
>         ...
>     except KeyboardInterrupt:
>         handle_interrupt()
>     except:
>         raise

Isn't the "except: raise" implicit if you omit it?

-- Gerhard