On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:52:36PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >> The whole _point_ of this (part of the) discussion is that in Python, > >> code that doesn't explicitly test for errors is perfectly OK because the > >> interpreter does it for you. > > > > I would say that the whole point was that is *not* okay. > > So what's your problem with implicit throw-exception-if-error? Nothing really. The problem is with not explicitly testing for errors. > The only other difference is that Python makes it easier to inadvertently > throw an exception for something that should have been perfectly OK, while > in Perl/C it's very easy to inadvertently ignore an error you should have > handled. > > The first kind of bug is _far_ easier to fix, IMHO. And yet in the real world, it's the kind that gets left unfixed, while the latter kind does not. Resulting in a lot of code that crashes and burns for things that really didn't matter. I'd rather have a daemon silently ignore an error than die for a non-error. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature