Skip to content

bpo-41576: document BaseException in favor of bare except #21917

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Aug 6, 2021

Conversation

graingert
Copy link
Contributor

@graingert graingert commented Aug 18, 2020

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels Aug 18, 2020
@graingert graingert changed the title document BaseException in favour of bare except bpo-41576: document BaseException in favour of bare except Aug 18, 2020
Copy link
Member

@terryjreedy terryjreedy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To me, the change improves this section.

@graingert graingert changed the title bpo-41576: document BaseException in favour of bare except bpo-41576: document BaseException in favor of bare except Aug 21, 2020
@@ -488,5 +489,3 @@ used in a way that ensures they are always cleaned up promptly and correctly. ::
After the statement is executed, the file *f* is always closed, even if a
problem was encountered while processing the lines. Objects which, like files,
provide predefined clean-up actions will indicate this in their documentation.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My editor keeps trimming this buggy whitespace, so we should probably remove it anyway

@graingert
Copy link
Contributor Author

@terryjreedy what's the next step here?

@terryjreedy
Copy link
Member

I am looking at this and will request or make some changes. I need to look at the context and think of how to answer Serhiy's objection on the issue.

@graingert
Copy link
Contributor Author

@terryjreedy I've now fixed the conflicts in this PR

@graingert graingert requested a review from terryjreedy July 20, 2021 19:47
@ambv ambv added needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes labels Aug 6, 2021
@ambv ambv merged commit e9a6f1b into python:main Aug 6, 2021
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @graingert for the PR, and @ambv for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9, 3.10.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, @graingert and @ambv, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.9 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker e9a6f1b78bf57d9f3f99547bd007d7cfc9724cfb 3.9

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the needs backport to 3.10 only security fixes label Aug 6, 2021
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-27646 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2021
@graingert graingert deleted the patch-5 branch August 6, 2021 20:44
@ambv ambv removed the needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes label Aug 6, 2021
miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 6, 2021
(cherry picked from commit e9a6f1b)

Co-authored-by: Thomas Grainger <[email protected]>
@terryjreedy
Copy link
Member

@ambv Thanks for finishing this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants