Hi,
I've came to a problem where I want to keep backwards and forwards
compatibility with an exception syntax. And I mean by backwards going
further down to Python 2.5.
I was pointed to this option from a stack overflow answer[1] that works
forward and backwards, I rewrite the solution here:
I have a socket logging handler and I want to be able to catch
exceptions from it. Specifically, I want to know if the remote side
has gone away so I can close the socket and reopen it when the remote
side come back.
What happens now is that I get Broken pipe and BAD_WRITE_RETRY
exceptions, but
Fabien fabien.mauss...@gmail.com writes:
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers)
and do a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one
after each other, and each task follows the same interface: ...
If most of the resources will be spent on
On 06/19/2015 10:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
AIUI what he's doing is all the subparts of task1 in parallel, then
all the subparts of task2:
pool.map(task1, dirs, chunksize=1)
pool.map(task2, dirs, chunksize=1)
pool.map(task3, dirs, chunksize=1)
task1 can be done on all of dirs in parallel, as
On 06/20/2015 05:14 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
I would keep your core logic Pythonic, raise exceptions. But I would
wrap each task in something to catch any Exception subclass and report
back to the queue. Untested example:
def subwrapper(q, callable, *args, **kwargs):
try:
q.put(
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:01 am, Fabien wrote:
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers) and
do a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one after
each other, and each
On 19Jun2015 18:16, Fabien fabien.mauss...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/19/2015 04:25 PM, Andres Riancho wrote:
My recommendation is that you should pass some extra arguments to the task:
* A unique task id
* A result multiprocessing.Queue
When an exception is raised you put
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers) and
do a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one after
each other, and each task follows the same interface:
def task_1(path_to_glacier_dir):
open file1 in path_to_glacier_dir
do stuff
Fabien,
My recommendation is that you should pass some extra arguments to the task:
* A unique task id
* A result multiprocessing.Queue
When an exception is raised you put (unique_id, exception) to the
queue. When it succeeds you put (unique_id, None). In the main process
you
On 19 June 2015 at 15:01, Fabien fabien.mauss...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers) and do
a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one after each
other, and each task follows the same interface:
def
- Original Message -
From: Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com
A simple way to approach this could be something like:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import math
import multiprocessing
def sqrt(x):
if x 0:
return 'error', x
else:
return 'success',
- Original Message -
From: Fabien fabien.mauss...@gmail.com
To: python-list@python.org
Sent: Friday, 19 June, 2015 4:01:02 PM
Subject: Catching exceptions with multi-processing
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers)
and
do a lot
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:01 am, Fabien wrote:
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers) and
do a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one after
each other, and each task follows the same interface:
I'm afraid your description is
On 06/19/2015 05:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:01 am, Fabien wrote:
Folks,
I am developing a tool which works on individual entities (glaciers) and
do a lot of operations on them. There are many tasks to do, one after
each other, and each task follows the same
On 06/19/2015 04:25 PM, Andres Riancho wrote:
Fabien,
My recommendation is that you should pass some extra arguments to the task:
* A unique task id
* A result multiprocessing.Queue
When an exception is raised you put (unique_id, exception) to the
queue. When it succeeds you
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:26:43 +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 17Nov2012 03:12, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
| Is there some other trick to grab the current exception from inside an
| except block?
sys.exc_info ?
Thanks, that is just what I was looking for.
Oh for the day I can drop support for Python 2.4 and 2.5...
I have some code that needs to run in any version of Python from 2.4
onwards. Yes, it must be a single code base.
I wish to catch an exception and bind the exception to a name.
In Python 2.6 onwards, I can do:
try:
something()
On 17Nov2012 03:12, Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info
wrote:
| Oh for the day I can drop support for Python 2.4 and 2.5...
|
|
| I have some code that needs to run in any version of Python from 2.4
| onwards. Yes, it must be a single code base.
|
| I wish to catch an
I have a block of test code, where I am trying to raise and catch my own user
defined exception
class NetActiveError(RuntimeError):
def __init__(self,error):
self.args = error
def a():
try:
fh = open(me.txt, r)
except Exception as (errno, errText):
print
What makes you think it has to do with user-defined exceptions?
try :
...raise Exception(hello)
... except Exception as (errno, errText) :
... print whatever
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
ValueError: need more than 1 values to unpack
An Exception is an object, not a tuple of
okay - but why does the response come back like
No such file or directory
def b
('n', 'e', 't', ' ', 'a', 'l', 'r', 'e', 'a', 'd', 'y', ' ', 'r', 'u', 'n',
'n', 'i', 'n', 'g')
On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
What makes you think it has to do with user-defined exceptions?
Chris Hare wrote:
okay - but why does the response come back like
No such file or directory
def b
('n', 'e', 't', ' ', 'a', 'l', 'r', 'e', 'a', 'd', 'y', ' ', 'r', 'u', 'n',
'n', 'i', 'n', 'g')
The class Exception saves its arguments in the 'args' instance
attribute, and when it prints the
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:37 PM, MRAB wrote:
Chris Hare wrote:
okay - but why does the response come back like
No such file or directory
def b
('n', 'e', 't', ' ', 'a', 'l', 'r', 'e', 'a', 'd', 'y', ' ', 'r', 'u', 'n',
'n', 'i', 'n', 'g')
The class Exception saves its arguments in the 'args'
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 01:37:17 +0100, MRAB wrote:
The correct way to create your own exceptions is to call the
superclass's __init__ method:
class NetActiveError(RuntimeError):
... def __init__(self, error):
... RuntimeError.__init__(self, error)
As given, that's pointless
. is there an easier way to go about doing
this? is there something i'm missing about catching exceptions here?
Thanks in advance!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
.
basically, what i want to happen is to try to run 'something' with the
wrapped fortran code and if that doesn't work (error encountered,
etc.) try something else. is there an easier way to go about doing
this? is there something i'm missing about catching exceptions here?
I'd reorder the code
New submission from Taek Joo Kim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
With this patch it prints warning message for catching exceptions that
don't inherit from BaseException when -3 flag is used.
--
components: Interpreter Core
files: catchexc.patch
keywords: patch
messages: 63761
nosy: taicki
severity
Alexander Belopolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
This belongs to issue2291.
--
nosy: +belopolsky, brett.cannon
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2371
__
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I'll review this once I address issue2291.
--
assignee: - gvanrossum
nosy: +gvanrossum
priority: - normal
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2371
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Thanks!
Applied as r61475.
--
resolution: - accepted
status: open - closed
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2371
__
Alexander Belopolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I left the following comment in issue2291 pertaining to this patch:
There is also a subtle bug in the issue2371 patch:
$ cat x.py
try:
raise ValueError
except ((ValueError,),):
pass
$ ./python -3 x.py
x.py:3:
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Alex, can you please open a separate bug for that? The cross-posting of
comments is unhelpful, and the issue was not introduced by this patch.
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2371
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I've checked a temporary work-around for that issue and another one in
r61478. This now has some false negatives; that's better than false
positives IMO.
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexander Belopolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex, can you please open a separate bug for that? The cross-posting of
comments is unhelpful, and the issue was not introduced by this patch.
Please see
Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not the *previous* exception, but the *current* one. You must be
inside an except clause to use a bare raise.
No, you don't have to be inside an except clause to use a bare raise.
A bare 'raise' will re-raise the last exception that was active in
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:49:59 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Another version:
import exceptions
As back in time as I could go (Python 1.5), exceptions were available as
builtins...
def onfailFalse(fn):
def inner(*args, **kwargs):
try:
return
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:52:35 -0300, Duncan Booth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not the *previous* exception, but the *current* one. You must be
inside an except clause to use a bare raise.
No, you don't have to be inside an except clause to use a
On Mar 9, 9:56 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:49:59 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Another version:
import exceptions
As back in time as I could go (Python 1.5), exceptions were available as
builtins...
I did not know that.
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:30:20 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
There is a serious flaw on this approach, the function can't return any
false value (it would be treated as a failure).
I was teaching myself decorators more than anything, so it's not
thought out to any
On Mar 9, 11:57 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:30:20 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
There is a serious flaw on this approach, the function can't return any
false value (it would be treated as a failure).
I was teaching myself
En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:14:18 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Mea culpa.
Ego te absolvo in nomine Patris Guidii et Filii Python et Spiritus Sancti
Computatorium.
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
MonkeeSage a écrit :
On Mar 7, 4:58 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
except_retry: # the missing(???) keyword you're after
What is 'except_retry'?
A totally imaginary statement that would do what the OP is looking for.
To the OP, with the loop and the callables you
On Mar 7, 7:32 pm, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
En Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:17:37 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
@onfail(False)
def a(x):
if x == 1:
return 'function a succeeded'
else:
raise
I know it's irrelevant, as you use a bare except, but such raise looks a
bit ugly...
--
Gabriel
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Sijben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send them over the queue to another thread where the exception is
raised in that
En Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:31:14 -0300, Aahz [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Sijben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:31:20 -0300, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:17:37 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
@onfail(False)
def a(x):
if x == 1:
return 'function a succeeded'
else:
raise
I know it's irrelevant, as you use a
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought raise on its own was supposed to re-raise the previous
exception, but I've just tried it in the interactive interpreter and it
doesn't work for me.
It means you can catch an exception, do stuff with it, and then pass
it upward to earlier
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:19:27 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought raise on its own was supposed to re-raise the previous
exception, but I've just tried it in the interactive interpreter and it
doesn't work for me.
It means you can catch an exception,
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you saying it only works as advertised within the except clause of a
try...except block?
I think that's the idea. It hadn't occurred to me that it could be
used any other way, but I don't have the docs in front of me right
now, so maybe I missed
En Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:11:54 -0300, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
@onfail(False)
def a(x):
if x == 1:
return 'function a succeeded'
else:
raise
I thought raise on its own was supposed to re-raise the previous
exception, but I've just tried it in
On Mar 8, 10:31 am, Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
En Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:17:37 -0300, Gerard Flanagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
@onfail(False)
def a(x):
if x == 1:
return 'function a succeeded'
else:
raise
I know it's irrelevant, as you use a
Hi all,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
Here are three ways I can think of doing it:
--
# This
Hello Arnaud,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
Exceptions are for error handling, not flow control.
On 7 Mar, 19:26, Miki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Arnaud,
Hi Miki
[snip]
Exceptions are for error handling, not flow control.
Maybe but it's not always that clear cut! As error handling is a form
of flow control the two have to meet somewhere.
[snip]
As a side note, try to avoid catch:,
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arnaud Delobelle
wrote:
# This one only works because a,b,c are functions
# Moreover it seems like an abuse of a loop construct to me
def rolled_first(x):
for f in a, b, c:
try:
return f(x)
except:
continue
raise
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Miki wrote:
Exceptions are for error handling, not flow control.
That's not true, they are *exceptions* not *errors*. They are meant to
signal exceptional situations. And at least under the cover it's used in
every ``for``-loop because the end condition is signaled by a
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Hi all,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
Here are three ways I can think
Miki a écrit :
Hello Arnaud,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
Exceptions are for error handling,
Larry Bates a écrit :
(snip)
def d(x):
if isinstance(x, basestring):
#
# Code here for string
#
elif isinstance(x, int):
#
# Code here for int
#
elif isinstance(x, float):
#
# Code here for string
#
En Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:00:59 -0300, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
this kind of cose is exactly what OO polymorphic dispatch is supposed to
this kind of cose? Ce genre de chose?
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 7, 8:52 pm, Larry Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Without knowing more about the functions and the variable it is somewhat
hard to tell what you are trying to accomplish. If a, b, c are functions
that act on x when it is a different type, change to one function that
can handle
Arnaud Delobelle a écrit :
Hi all,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise CantDoIt.
Here are three ways I can
On Mar 7, 2:48 pm, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really thinking about this situation so let me clarify. Here
is a simple concrete example, taking the following for the functions
a,b,c I mention in my original post.
- a=int
- b=float
- c=complex
- x is a string
Gabriel Genellina a écrit :
En Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:00:59 -0300, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
this kind of cose is exactly what OO polymorphic dispatch is supposed to
this kind of cose?
sorry
s/cose/code/
Ce genre de chose?
En quelques sortes, oui, quoique pas
On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:48 pm, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really thinking about this situation so let me clarify. Here
is a simple concrete example, taking the following for the functions
a,b,c I mention in my original post.
-
En Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:48:18 -0300, Arnaud Delobelle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
for f in int, float, complex:
try:
return f(x)
except ValueError:
continue
raise CantDoIt
But if the three things I want to do are not callable objects but
chunks of code this
Arnaud Delobelle a écrit :
On Mar 7, 8:52 pm, Larry Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Without knowing more about the functions and the variable it is somewhat
hard to tell what you are trying to accomplish. If a, b, c are functions
that act on x when it is a different type, change to one
Gabriel Genellina a écrit :
En Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:48:18 -0300, Arnaud Delobelle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
for f in int, float, complex:
try:
return f(x)
except ValueError:
continue
raise CantDoIt
But if the three things I want to do are not callable objects
Arnaud Delobelle schrieb:
On Mar 7, 8:52 pm, Larry Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Without knowing more about the functions and the variable it is somewhat
hard to tell what you are trying to accomplish. If a, b, c are functions
that act on x when it is a different type, change to one
On Mar 7, 4:58 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
except_retry: # the missing(???) keyword you're after
What is 'except_retry'?
To the OP, with the loop and the callables you could also break out of
the loop when the condition is met and use the else condition to raise
the
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:32:53 -0800, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Hi all,
Imagine I have three functions a(x), b(x), c(x) that each return
something or raise an exception. Imagine I want to define a function
that returns a(x) if possible, otherwise b(x), otherwise c(x),
otherwise raise
All,
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send them over the queue to another thread where the exception is
raised in that scope?
considering that an exception is an object I feel it
Paul Sijben wrote:
All,
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send them over the queue to another thread where the exception is
raised in that scope?
considering that an exception
Paul Sijben schrieb:
All,
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send them over the queue to another thread where the exception is
raised in that scope?
considering that an
Stargaming Diez,
thanks very much!
Stargaming wrote:
Paul Sijben schrieb:
All,
in a worker thread setup that communicates via queues is it possible to
catch exceptions raised by the worker executed, put them in an object
and send them over the queue to another thread where the exception
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Test(object):
...
def _setx(self,strvalue):
try:
self._x = float(strvalue)
except ValueError:
print 'Warning : could not set x attribute to %s' % strvalue
...
I think what you are looking for is:
class
Hi, In the following program, I have a class Test which has a property
x. Its setx function gets a string value and converts it into a float
and stores into it.
class Test(object):
def _getx(self):
return self._x
def _setx(self,strvalue):
try:
self._x =
On 16 Dec 2006 03:54:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, In the following program, I have a class Test which has a property
x. Its setx function gets a string value and converts it into a float
and stores into it.
class Test(object):
def _getx(self):
return
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:54:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, In the following program, I have a class Test which has a property
x. Its setx function gets a string value and converts it into a float
and stores into it.
[snip code]
Python isn't Java. Are you sure you need properties?
I
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:36:00 +0530, Amit Khemka wrote:
If I gather correctly, i guess in case of errors/exceptions in a class
function, you want to get the error string. One thing that comes
straight to my mind is, in such a case use a return statement in
functions with two arguments.
for
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:54:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, In the following program, I have a class Test which has a property
x. Its setx function gets a string value and converts it into a float
and stores into it.
[snip code]
Python isn't Java. Are you
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:24:28 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, In the following program, I have a class Test which has a property
x. Its setx function gets a string value and converts it into a float
and stores into it.
[snip code]
Python isn't Java. Are you sure you need properties?
On 16 dic, 10:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Python isn't Java. Are you sure you need properties?
I do not know Java. But, object.x = value looks much better than
object.set_x(value) . Is there any harm in doing it, provided I have to
do more than just storing the value.
84 matches
Mail list logo
