wuwei23 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 28 02:36:21 CEST 2012
On Jun 28, 10:13 am, Charles Hixson <charleshi... at earthlink.net>
> On 06/25/2012 12:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > "Catch any exception" is almost certainly the wrong thing to do, almost
> > always.
> This time it was the right thing, as I suspected that *SOME* exception
> was being thrown, but had no idea what one. The problem was I didn't
> know how to print the result when I caught the exception.
I think you're still missing the point. If you _didn't_ have a bare
try/except, the exception _would have been raised_ and the exception
You _don't_ need an exception handler for exceptions to occur, they
just occur. You _only_ need a handler when you want to, y'know, handle
> This has
> since been cleared up, but first I found it on Google, and then I was
> told about it on the list. The documentation left me totally ... well,
> not uninformed, but confused. As I said it turned out to be a method
> call on an uninitialized variable, as I found out once I figured out how
> to list the result of catching the exception. Which is what I expected
> the documentation to show me how to do.
The documentation doesn't expect you to write code to block error
reporting. If you had just removed the try/except, you would have seen
the problem right away.
> What really annoys me is the way the documentation has worsened since
> python 2.5, but if you know what it is trying to tell you, then I guess
> you aren't bothered by undefined terms and lack of examples. I went
> away from programming in Python for a couple of years though, and I
> guess I missed the transition, or something.
Can I suggest re-looking at the tutorial for errors & exceptions? I
really think you're making this a lot more difficult for yourself than
it needs to be.
More information about the Python-list