En Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:29:09 -0300, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Gabriel Genellina a écrit : > >> It appears that you want to catch all exceptions, just use Exception for >> that: >> try: >> ... >> except Exception: >> ... > > Hem... That's definitively *not* an a good advice here IMHO. A catch-all > may be useful near a program's 'top-level' to handle any other unhandled > exception in a more user-friendly way (ie : log the error, warns whoever > is in charge, try to cleanly dispose of resources / data / whatever so > we don't break anything, and display a nice and visible error message to > the user), but anywhere else you really want to know *exactly* which > exception(s) you're expecting to handle here and let the other propagate. Yes, thanks for putting it perfectly clear - more clear than I could have written. -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
