TypeError: Can't convert 'int' object to str implicitly

[tunacubes at gmail.com]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:53:44 AM UTC-4, Peter Otten wrote:
> tunacubes at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Hey,
> 
> > 
> 
> > Let me explain what my program is supposed to do...
> 
> > 
> 
> > I am using a macro program in conjunction with a python script I am
> 
> > writing. The macro inputs data into a database we use at my job, blah blah
> 
> > blah.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The script asks how many numbers (devices) you need to enter. Next, it
> 
> > asks you to input the device numbers. When you input them, it creates a
> 
> > list with all of the devices. I then tell it to go into the script of the
> 
> > Macro (firstdev.ahk) that will run on the back-end, and replace the word
> 
> > "device" with the first device in the list. It then should execute the
> 
> > Macro, change the device number back to the word "Device" for future use,
> 
> > and then delete the first number from the list. It will repeat as long as
> 
> > there are numbers in the list.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The error I receive is "TypeError: Can't convert 'int' object to str
> 
> > implicitly" when it tries to put the device into the macro script. 
> 
> 
> 
> Python is trying hard to give you a meaningful error message and shows the 
> 
> line causing the error in the traceback. It pays to read carefully -- or to 
> 
> post it here if it doesn't make sense to you.
> 
> 
> 
> > devlist = []
> 
> ...
> 
> >         Number = int(input("Enter Device number: "))
> 
> >         devlist.append(Number)
> 
> ...
> 
> >     line = line.replace(devlist[0], "device")
> 
> 
> 
> devList is a list of integers, and devlist[0] is thus an int.
> 
> 
> 
> >>> "foo device bar\n".replace(42, "device")
> 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> 
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> 
> TypeError: Can't convert 'int' object to str implicitly
> 
> 
> 
> Implicitly? So let's try and convert the int /explicitly/ .
> 
> 
> 
> >>> "foo device bar\n".replace(str(42), "device")
> 
> 'foo device bar\n'
> 
> 
> 
> No error, but probably still not what you expected. Can you sort it out 
> 
> yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> > I am fairly new to python, so if anything looks screwed up or like I am an
> 
> > idiot, it is because I am.
> 
> 
> 
> I like to see a bit of self-deprecation now and then, but on this list 
> 
> complete tracebacks find even more love ;)

Thank you, Peter. This was a tremendous help. Got it working.