On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 11:11, Kevin Jacobs wrote: > My policy for bare excepts is that without significant justification > they _must_ either re-raise the original exception or raise another > exception. There are very few circumstances where I have allowed > my team to write pure bare excepts. I haven't checked, but a warning > for violations of this rule may be a nice addition to pychecker or pylint. The other case I've seen are for command-shell like loops, where you might print the exception in the bare except, but not re-raise the exception. Think about the main interactive interpreter loop. But yeah I agree, you want strong justification for any use of bare except. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040907/0ad56503/attachment.pgp
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