> I suppose that I am willing to lessen my expectations from _all_ to most. > ;-) Regarding your example I could also do: > > if something(): > def nothing(): return 0 > else: > def nothing(): return 1 > > But this doesn't stop IDEs from attempting to do auto-completion. I'm not > trying to find hidden exceptions... just trying to easily get an idea of > what could go wrong on each line of code.
There is AFAIK only one language that this can de accomplished - java, and that's because of these checked exceptions of theirs. But checked exceptions are considered harmful: http://www.gcek.net/ref/books/sw/ooad/tip/#_Toc41169682 I totally agree with that - in java, I tend to throw SystemExceptions to rid myself of endless try/catch clauses that obscure the real problem. So - there is no way of knowing this. The only thing I can think of is to keep some docs around that specify what exceptions to be expected, and that tool of yours could try and see if it can identify a function/method by name and notify you of the possible exceptions thrown. Might actually work out quite well for the standardlib, if one does the work for annotating all functions/methods properly. -- Regards, Diez B. Roggisch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
