I often struggle with the problem outlined in part in this thread. I
know that I'm going to repeat some of what is said elsewhere but I'd
like to present the question all in one place.
I believe that the routines in the Python standard library do not
document which exceptions they could raise (I understand some reasons
why, but they nontheless do not). So I often find out the hard way
that a library call can raise an exception that I was not smart enough
to anticipate. So I often find myself doing
try:
make_a_routine_call(x,y,z)
except AnticipatedError, err:
do_something_with_it(x,y,z,err)
exception Exception, err:
print "something crazy happened "+str(err)
where the print statement is just supposed to give me some idea of
what happened. (I actually usually log it instead of printing it. If
there is a better way, I'd love to hear it.) But "str(err)" sometimes
fails, as the OP noted.
Further, xtr(err) alone is not enough, I believe. I believe that some
routines in the standard library do not return strings (by that I mean
something approximately like "err.value is a pair"; forgive me, I
don't remember the full details).
Surely as lovely a language as Python has a better idiom for dealing
with exceptions in the standard library than something that works out
to
print "something crazy happened"+" ".join([xtra(x) for x in err])
? (I would understand better if it was a user's code; they are free
to do what works for them, of course.) But I've been unable to think
of one and I haven't seen in this thread another direction. Is there
one?
Jim
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
