On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:04:41PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:48:24PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:40:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:35:05PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > > > The only way to get shorter is to not handle the errors - which is the > > > > norm in python. > > > > > > This is a weak argument against exceptions (and/or python) for the same > > > reasons that "this bit of Perl is a mess" is a weak argument against Perl. > > > > It's not an argument against exceptions. Check the context. > > Context: > > > Exceptions should only be used for exceptional circumstances, and even > > then think twice. The single thing for which they are useful is [...] > > This is not often useful - library APIs are the most notable case. Using > > exceptions in any other circumstances is usually a really bad idea. Bwah? Wrong context. It was part of an argument against "Python is better because the code is shorter because [exceptions]" - which is only true when you don't handle the errors. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature