king kikapu a écrit : > at first, thanks you all for your help! > > So, i will follow your advice.In a moment though, i thought that "ok, > do not check anything of the parameter's type but do a try/catch at > the calls inside the function"
And so what ? Once an exception got caught, what are you going to do ? Raise another exception ? Re-raise the same exception ? In both cases, you usually don't gain much - and sometimes loose (time, simplicity, readability, and a usefull traceback). Unless you know how to handle it, it's usually better to let the exception propagate. Usually, the person coding the *application* (ie: the coder using your lib) will wrap the whole thing into a catch-all exception handler at the higher level, so he can log the full traceback, display a nice error to the end user, and crash gracefully. As a library programmer, you should not care about this. > But this way, i would rather defeat the purpose because i have to try/ > catch in *every* call inside the func. > So, i suppose that i wouldn't want to do that and just try to make the > call in whatever they passed me in. You're starting to see the light, my friend !-) > Strange world the dynamic one.... If that's too dynamic for you, then run for your life - this is just the visible part of the iceberg. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
