On 2010-12-04, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:12 am, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote:
>> Actually, I thought that debate was resolved years ago. I cannot think of
>> a single recently developed programming language that does not provide
>> exception handling mechanisms because they have been proven more reliable.
>
> Google's Go lacks exceptions and I believe that was a deliberate
> design choice.
1. The debate that I was referring to was between simple function checking
vs. everything else. I didn't mean to automatically proclude any
newer methodologies of which I might not even be aware.
2. I would consider the defer/panic/recovery mechanism functionally similar
to exceptions in most ways. It allows the error handling
code to be placed at a higher level and panics tranverse the stack
until they are handled by a recovery. This is basically equivilent
to how exceptions work using different names. The change is basically
the defer
function which solves the problem of any cleanup work that the
function needs to do before the panic is raised. I like it, its
nice. It formalizes the pattern of cleaning up within an exception
block and re-raising the exception.
I do have to wonder what patterns will emerge in the object given
to panic(). Since it takes anything, and since Go doesn't have an
object hierarchy, much less an exception hierarchy, the panic value
raised may or may not contain the kind of detailed information that
can be obtained about the error that we are able to get from the
Exception objects in Python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
