|
From: Christopher B. <bl...@gs...> - 2003-03-31 15:41:09
|
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:51:04AM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > bl...@us... wrote: > Catching Exception should be the same as the generic except nowadays, > since all exception classes are subclasses of this class. The only > things you don't catch are string based exceptions. > > Note that a generic try:except: is almost always a bad idea, > since it also catches exceptions you don't to mask such as > KeyboardInterrupt, signal handler related exceptions, SystemExit, > etc. Hmm... I recently made changes to client, and the except block was never executed when certain exceptions occurred. I changed the code to except: and all exceptions were then caught (which I believe is what I wanted to have happen). I'll take a look at it tonight tho, and try to reproduce the problems I encountered. Thanks for the post tho, -c -- 10:35am up 161 days, 2:29, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.23, 0.92 |