On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:23:50 +0000, kj wrote: > I don't get your point. Even when I *know* that a certain exception may > happen, I don't necessarily catch it. I catch only those exceptions for > which I can think of a suitable response that is *different* from just > letting the program fail. (After all, my own code raises its own > exceptions with the precise intention of making the program fail.) If > an unexpected exception occurs, then by definition, I had no better > response in mind for that situation than just letting the program fail, > so I'm happy to let that happen. If, afterwards, I think of a different > response for a previously uncaught exception, I'll modify the code > accordingly. > > I find this approach far preferable to the alternative of knowing a long > list of possible exceptions (some of which may never happen in actual > practice), and think of ways to keep the program still alive > no-matter-what. "No memory? No disk space? No problem! Just a flesh > wound!" What's the point of that?
/me cheers wildly! Well said! -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
