Suggestion for (re)try statement

[Rocco Moretti]

Sori Schwimmer wrote:
> 0) Sorry, I don't know how to post a reply in the same
> thread.

Usually it is simply hitting the "Reply" button/link/key combination on 
your mail/news reader when the post you want to reply to in view. (If 
you want reply to multiple people, you can always reply to the original 
post, or reply to one, and just treat the topics from all of them.)

> 2) Rocco Morreti wrote:

First off, let me say that my message wasn't meant to scare you off - it 
was constructive criticism, appraising you of what would be necessary if 
you actually want the construct in the language. If you're just shooting 
the breeze/navel gazing, I apologize for harshing your cool.

>>What is so repugnant about the equivalent, currently
>>valid way of writing it?
 >
> Nothing "repugnant". 

"Repugnant" was probably too strong a word. The point I was trying to 
make was: If you want such a construct added to the language, you need 
to justify all the hassle & effort of introducing the new syntax. Given 
that there is a way to accomplish the same thing now, you would need to 
show that your way is not just as good, but better than the current way.

> It's all about convenience, not about
> getting to bare bone equivalents.

Nothing wrong with convenience - you just have to show that the 
convenience would be used often enough to justify the hassle. It'd be 
awfully convenient to have a passenger jet parked in your garage - but 
you probably wouldn't use it frequently enough to justify the expense of 
maintaining, fueling, and licensing it.

>> And remember - your goal isn't ultimately to
>> convince me or someother 
>> person on comp.lang.python, it's to convince Guido
> 
> I'm not trying to convince anybody. In the democratic
> state-of-mind in which I live, the idea will be taken
> in consideration if it is found useful by many, not by
> one, even if the one is the almighty Guido. 

My comment made with the assumption that you were trying to actively 
promote the construct, rather than floating it as a trial balloon. I was 
aiming at keeping you from getting annoyed later on when your petition 
with hundreds of signatures gets shot down by Guido. Despite your 
state-of-mind, in practicality, Python is not a democracy - language 
constructs live or die by the will of Guido. If you actually want the 
construct in the language, a comp.lang.python plebiscite isn't going to 
do it - you'll need to convince the BDFL that it's a good idea. Now, 
Guido isn't totally ambivalent to the masses - if a large number of 
people are for it, there's a good chance Guido will be for it too. But 
you're not aiming for a popularity contest - what'll convince people 
(including Guido) is good arguments as to *why this construct is better 
than what we have now,* and *why it will be worth the hassle of 
implementing and maintaining it*.