Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> [...]
> > A 'try ... except' statement is not an exception handler. [...]
>
> Just as a matter of interest, what would your definition of an
> exception handler be, then? Specifically, what's the "except" clause
> for?
It seems my understanding was wrong. The 'except' clause *is* an
exception handler. (I was thinking that the "default exception
handler" was the only thing that could be called an "exception
handler".) It's explained better here:
<URL:http://docs.python.org/ref/try.html>
> The docs for looging.except should make it explicit that the
> exception will be re-raised.
Yes, I agree; it wasn't very clear on reading the description of
'logging.exception()' what would actually happen.
> Of course it might be possible to do something hackish like
>
> try:
> ...
> except:
> try:
> logging.exception(...)
> except:
> pass
>
> which (although untested) should theoretically allow the catching
> (for a second time) of teh exception reraised by
> logging.exception().
It does seem rather a side effect, and an unexpected (and
undocumented) one at that.
--
\ "If it ain't bust don't fix it is a very sound principle and |
`\ remains so despite the fact that I have slavishly ignored it |
_o__) all my life." -- Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
