On 11 Jul 2014 12:46, "Ben Hoyt" <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [replying to python-dev this time] > > >> The "onerror" approach can also deal with readdir failing, which the > >> PEP currently glosses over. > > > > > > Do we want this, though? I can see an error handler for individual entries, > > but if one of the *dir commands fails that would seem to be fairly > > catastrophic. > > Very much agreed that this isn't necessary for just readdir/FindNext > errors. We've never had this level of detail before -- if listdir() > fails half way through (very unlikely) it just bombs with OSError and > you get no entries at all. > > If you really really want this (again very unlikely), you can always > use call next() directly and catch OSError around that call.
Agreed - I think the PEP should point this out explicitly, and show that the approach it takes offers a lot of flexibility in error handling from "just let it fail", to a single try/catch around the whole loop, to try/catch just around the operations that might call lstat(), to try/catch around the individual iteration steps. os.walk remains the higher level API that most code should be using, and that has to retain the current listdir based behaviour (any error = ignore all entries in that directory) for backwards compatibility reasons. Cheers, Nick. > > -Ben > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
