Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #5145
| Date | 2011-05-11 19:08 +0100 |
|---|---|
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
| Subject | Re: Proper way to handle errors in a module |
| References | <4DCAC78E.1000901@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1420.1305137340.9059.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 11/05/2011 18:29, Andrew Berg wrote:
> I'm a bit new to programming outside of shell scripts (and I'm no expert
> there), so I was wondering what is considered the best way to handle
> errors when writing a module. Do I just let exceptions go and raise
> custom exceptions for errors that don't trigger a standard one? Have the
> function/method return nothing or a default value and show an error
> message? I'm sure there's not a clear-cut answer, but I was just
> wondering what most developers would expect a module to do in certain
> situations.
Generally speaking, a function or method should either do what it's
expected to do, returning the expected result, or raise an exception if
it can't.
Also, it's often clearer to distinguish between a function, which
returns a result, and a procedure, which doesn't (in Python it would
return None).
For example, if you have a list, the functional form is:
sorted(my_list)
which returns a new sorted list, and the procedural form is:
my_list.sort()
which sorts in-place (modifying the list) and returns None.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Proper way to handle errors in a module MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-05-11 19:08 +0100
csiph-web