> Well, I was still casually using string exceptions up until about a year
>> ago, and I think I'm not the only one. There's probably lots of pre-2.0
>> code still running in the wild with string exceptions.
>
> Note "casually", probably in throw-away code. If you knew they didn't
> exist, you'd "casually" use some built-in exception, e.g. RuntimeError.
I'm mostly with Guido on this however... I would venture that many of
these "wild" string raises are shortcut error messages. Is there really
a lot of code that does < try: catch "foo": > ?
I still "casually" use string exceptions mostly as a shortcut to get
unfinished code to bomb (or to generate a quick traceback. Often of the form
if foo.is_simple():
foo.easy()
else:
raise 'zz'
Granted, I could probably use
raise NotImplementedError
But that is more typing than I want for a quick line that will likely
be ripped out the first time it actually triggers.
Also, I sometimes trap NotImplementedError, so I want an exception that
I would never try to catch (I don't think I could stomach a except "zz":
line in my code :-).
The good news for me (and I suspect many other casual string throwers)
is that if < raise "zz" > raises ANY runtime exception, most of my
code will continue to "do the right thing."
Pat
--
Patrick Miller | (925) 423-0309 | http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/people/pmiller
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4