On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com>: > >> At least use "except Exception" instead of a bare except. Do you >> really want things like SystemExit and KeyboardInterrupt to get turned >> into 0? > > How about: > > ============================== > try: > do_interesting_stuff() > except ValueError: > try: > log_it() > except: > pass > raise > ==============================
Are you asking if I think this is better? It still swallows arbitrary exceptions. Why would you want to re-raise the anticipated (and logged) ValueError instead of the exception that could potentially be unexpected? > Surprisingly this variant could raise an unexpected exception: > > ============================== > try: > do_interesting_stuff() > except ValueError: > try: > log_it() > finally: > raise > ============================== > > A Python bug? This does what it is supposed to. "If no expressions are present, raise re-raises the last exception that was active in the current scope." In this case, what that exception is depends on whether the finally clause was entered as a result of an exception or fall-through from the try clause. If you only want to re-raise the ValueError, then use the first form above. If you only want to re-raise the other exception, then do so from an except block (or don't catch it in the first place). -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
