On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 30/09/2013 14:51, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >> On 2013-09-29, ?????????? <nikos.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ???????? 29/9/2013 10:53 ????, ??/?? Chris Angelico ????????????: >>> >>> You fail to understand that these code i now use was written with the >>> help of regulars here and yes its correct. >> >> >> If you're code is correct, then use it and be happy. >> >> There's no need to bother us if your code is correct. >> > > Could this be an extremely rare case whereby the original code is 100% > correct but the problems have been exacerbated by the many suggested patches > given here being 100% incorrect?
Jests and barbs left aside, I believe his definition of "correct" is "wasn't crashing". Earlier in this thread there was a hint that he'd tightened a bare except to one specific exception. My guess is his code wasn't correct, but one bug (overly-broad try/except) masked another. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
