Victor Subervi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Jean-Michel Pichavant
<jeanmic...@sequans.com <mailto:jeanmic...@sequans.com>> wrote:
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
Victor Subervi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM, MRAB
<pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com <mailto:pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com>
<mailto:pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com
<mailto:pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com>>> wrote:
DON'T USE BARE EXCEPTS!
(There are 2 in your code.)
There are times when they are *necessary*.
No, there aren't.
Even if there were, this is not one of those situations.
And to elaborate a little bit, someone said in this list (sorry,
don't remember who) that often people think that making their code
robust is one of the top priority, especially when you are providing
some services to clients. That could be true. The fact is that most
newcomers thinks bare try except will do the trick: "look, my server
never crashes". Yes it does not crash, but even worse, it handles
exception in an inapropriate way that leads the server to behave in
a reliable, yet unpredictable, manner. And that is definitely *not*
being robust.
You all have made very good points about bare excepts. I promise you I
will work on this...AFTER I've finished the first working copy of this
shopping cart and gotten caught up on my work, and start to clean this
shopping cart up to make it truly professional. HOWEVER, there is NO
bare except influencing the problem which I am trying to fix. Can we
PLEASE set this issue aside and deal with the problem of this post??
[snip]
Bare excepts hide bugs. It's very easy to catch exceptions properly.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
