"Dave Angel" <[email protected]> wrote
def result_of_SPECIALIZED_SQLcall_for_child():
name =None
return name
I assume this is a placeholder for more complex code to follow?
class Child(Parent):
def add_name(self):
name = result_of_SPECIALIZED_SQLcall_for_child()
try:
name + ''
This does nothing except raise a type error. But that's
a very contrived way of checking the type.
self.name =ame
I assume this is a typo? And it never gets executed because
the error is always raised.
except TypeError:
super(Child, self).add_name()
I know this is a simplified example, but I'd still like to point out
that using exceptions when there's a simple test is not reasonable.
You can just check for None with a simple if test.
I don't mind using exceptions for a simple test but not where the
test is being forced by a piece of code that does nothing. In this
case I agree it would be better to check explicitly for a string if
a string is required.
Even using exceptions it would be better to do someting like:
try:
if type(name) != str:
raise TypeError
# other stuff here
except TypeError:
super(....)
It makes the purpose of the code obvious.
But
if type(name) != str:
super(....)
else:
# other stuff here
is clearer still
--
Alan Gauld
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
