On Jun 28, 10:13 am, Charles Hixson <charleshi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 06/25/2012 12:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > "Catch any exception" is almost certainly the wrong thing to do, almost > > always.
> This time it was the right thing, as I suspected that *SOME* exception > was being thrown, but had no idea what one. The problem was I didn't > know how to print the result when I caught the exception. I think you're still missing the point. If you _didn't_ have a bare try/except, the exception _would have been raised_ and the exception displayed. You _don't_ need an exception handler for exceptions to occur, they just occur. You _only_ need a handler when you want to, y'know, handle them. > This has > since been cleared up, but first I found it on Google, and then I was > told about it on the list. The documentation left me totally ... well, > not uninformed, but confused. As I said it turned out to be a method > call on an uninitialized variable, as I found out once I figured out how > to list the result of catching the exception. Which is what I expected > the documentation to show me how to do. The documentation doesn't expect you to write code to block error reporting. If you had just removed the try/except, you would have seen the problem right away. > What really annoys me is the way the documentation has worsened since > python 2.5, but if you know what it is trying to tell you, then I guess > you aren't bothered by undefined terms and lack of examples. I went > away from programming in Python for a couple of years though, and I > guess I missed the transition, or something. Can I suggest re-looking at the tutorial for errors & exceptions? I really think you're making this a lot more difficult for yourself than it needs to be. http://docs.python.org/tutorial/errors.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
