Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #107398
| From | Stephen Hansen <me@ixokai.io> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: How much sanity checking is required for function inputs? |
| Date | 2016-04-19 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17.1461133060.12923.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| References | <5713E52D.3060407@icloud.com> <1461131475.4042173.584042297.03DAB00E@webmail.messagingengine.com> <57171D23.40709@stoneleaf.us> <1461133057.4046578.584060569.2DD34821@webmail.messagingengine.com> |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 11:09 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 04/19/2016 10:51 PM, Stephen Hansen wrote: > > I use 1) more to be less 'nicer' and more, er, 'more specific'. Since I > > don't like exceptions to rise to the user level where niceness is > > needed. > > Yeah, that's a better phrasing for (1); I meant more appropriate or > informative, such as swapping an internal error (such as KeyError) for a > more meaningful FieldNotFound error (or whatever) -- largely library > code concerns. Yeah, and what the OP is doing is going the exact opposite-- from a more-specific exception (KeyError) to a more generic one (Exception). To me that's (usually) an anti-pattern. --S
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: How much sanity checking is required for function inputs? Stephen Hansen <me@ixokai.io> - 2016-04-19 23:17 -0700
csiph-web