On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Stephen Hansen <apt.shan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Victor Subervi <victorsube...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> except: >> > > >> except: >> pass >> > > If you want any hope of fixing the bug, remove both of these. Really -- do > not use bare excepts. > > In the first one, it looks like you're expecting sometimes there to be an > exception: that's okay. If you think an operation will produce one, its okay > to catch it if you know how to handle it. But do NOT use bare excepts. > Catch the actual exception you are expecting-- a KeyError maybe? ValueError? > I don't know, can't tell without knowing what "fn" does. > > In the second-- that bare except with a pass is doing absolutely nothing > but _destroying_ any chance you have of finding out what the bug IS and > fixing the bug. Remove that entire try/except: pass statement. Really. You > absolutely have to do it. The only reason you have not already found and > fixed this bug is that you have done this-- you can't do this and then ask > us to find the bug for you. > > Bare excepts are there for a reason, and there are times to use them. But > those are the exception and not the rule; and the time to use a except: pass > construct is NOT when you're trying to fix a bug. > Right <:-} I changed the "pass" to "raise" and discovered an error I "worked around" while I was trying to solve another problem...then subsequently forgot about this. You know, I'm really a poet and singer/songwriter, unfortunately that doesn't pay the bills. When will I ever learn to think in my left hemisphere like a programmer :-} Thanks, V
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
