On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:09 PM Sergio Fenoll <ser...@fenoll.be> wrote: > > O 25/09/20 ás 08:41, Chris Angelico escribiu: > > > It would have to not only look at get(), but everything that it calls. > > Either that, or you're back to the Java thing of "catch it or declare > > it", and we've seen from Java that that's a bad idea. > > > > ChrisA > I don't really understand why those are the only options. The way I see it, > whomever implements get() can just have a list of expected Exceptions and as > a caller you just handle those (now with the added ease that you don't > need to > look them up out-of-bounds, they're already in your IDE!) and if an > unexpected > exception happens, well you handle it the same way you do it now (i.e. > either not > at all, with a bare except, or something along those lines).
Don't think in terms of "expected exceptions". That's the mentality that leads to coding styles where you try to catch every exception the function can raise, which is the wrong way to think about it. Instead, think in terms of "exceptions that I can handle". ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/CGQESM3SQA3BYOEVG4OBLABNIGKXEFR5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
