The Most Diabolical Python Antipattern
Ian Kelly
ian.g.kelly at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 04:17:11 EST 2015
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
> Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>> On 30/01/2015 06:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> try:
>>> do_interesting_stuff()
>>> except ValueError:
>>> try:
>>> log_it()
>>> except:
>>> pass
>>> raise
>>> ==============================
>>>
>>> Surprisingly this variant could raise an unexpected exception:
>>>
>>> ==============================
>>> try:
>>> do_interesting_stuff()
>>> except ValueError:
>>> try:
>>> log_it()
>>> finally:
>>> raise
>>> ==============================
>>>
>>> A Python bug?
>>
>> It depends on the Python version that you're running - I think!!! See
>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3134/
>
> TL;DR
>
> My Python did do exception chaining, but the problem is the surface
> exception changes, which could throw off the whole error recovery.
>
> So I'm thinking I might have found a valid use case for the "diabolical
> antipattern."
I suppose, although it seems awfully contrived to me. In any case it
would still be better with "except Exception" rather than the bare
except. Unless re-raising that ValueError is more important to you
than letting the user hit Ctrl-C during the logging call.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list