On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:11:28 -0400, Ross Ridge wrote: > > >> Plenty of people were quick to say that the exception should be passed > >> through to the caller. No one said this behaviour should be documented. > >> There may be little practical difference bewteen calling sys.exit() > >> after printing an error and progating an exception if no one using the > >> library knows that it could generate that exception in those > >> circumstances. > > > That's true, I didn't explicitly say that the library should be > > documented. Nor did I say that it shouldn't be riddled with bugs. There's > > little practical difference between a buggy library and one that raises > > unexpected (i.e. undocumented) exceptions either. > > Also note that there are quite a couples cases where the library authors > themselves cannot predict which exception types may be raised - as soon > as the library functions expect callback functions, file-like or > dict-like or whatever-like objects etc, it's the caller's responsability > to handle the exceptions that may be raised by what *he* passes to the > library...
No, the library author can always predict which exception his library may raise. If a callback function, file-like, dict-like, etc raises an exception, it is not his libraries' exception anymore and is not his responsibility. In that case we should refer to the documentation for the callback/etc/etc instead of the documentation for the library. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list