Re: NoneType Error

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:35:18 -0300, Maryam Saeedi <ma*******@gmai l.comescribió:

I am using a python program on a lot of different documents and for few of
them I will get NoneType error. I just want to skip those files and continue
for others, I do this without a problem for
IndexError,Type Error,ValueErro r,NameError :

try:
....
except (IndexError,Typ eError,ValueErr or,NameError):
....

but when I add NoneType it gives the following error:
except (NoneType,Index Error,TypeError ,ValueError,Nam eError):
NameError: name 'NoneType' is not defined

and if I do not use the NoneType then it does not go through either and
stops the program when I get to such a file. Is there another name that
captures this error?

NoneType is not an exception, but the type of the None object. Perhaps you're not interpreting correctly some error messages:

>>x=None
x()

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not callable

(the exception raised is a TypeError; NoneType is part of the message).

It appears that you want to catch all exceptions, just use Exception for that:
try:
...
except Exception:
...

--
Gabriel Genellina

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Gabriel Genellina a écrit :

En Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:35:18 -0300, Maryam Saeedi <ma*******@gmai l.comescribió:

(snip)

It appears that you want to catch all exceptions, just use Exception for that:
try:
...
except Exception:
...

Hem... That's definitively *not* an a good advice here IMHO. A catch-all
may be useful near a program's 'top-level' to handle any other unhandled
exception in a more user-friendly way (ie : log the error, warns whoever
is in charge, try to cleanly dispose of resources / data / whatever so
we don't break anything, and display a nice and visible error message to
the user), but anywhere else you really want to know *exactly* which
exception(s) you're expecting to handle here and let the other propagate.

[Gabriel Genellina]

En Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:29:09 -0300, Bruno Desthuilliers <br************ ********@websit eburo.invalides cribió:

Gabriel Genellina a écrit :

>It appears that you want to catch all exceptions, just use Exception for that:
try:
...
except Exception:
...

Hem... That's definitively *not* an a good advice here IMHO. A catch-all
may be useful near a program's 'top-level' to handle any other unhandled
exception in a more user-friendly way (ie : log the error, warns whoever
is in charge, try to cleanly dispose of resources / data / whatever so
we don't break anything, and display a nice and visible error message to
the user), but anywhere else you really want to know *exactly* which
exception(s) you're expecting to handle here and let the other propagate.

Yes, thanks for putting it perfectly clear - more clear than I could have written.

--
Gabriel Genellina