hi Alan and Danny, I think I understand what you guys are saying. I don't believe I am ignoring the error. Ideally what I'd like is for the procedural program to run through its steps and if it encounters an error, to log the error and pick up where it left off and keep going. I gather you think that is bad practice, but how bad ? If I log the error so that I can go back and decipher what input caused, say, the UnboundLocalError, and keep running the rest of my program, then I feel that is better than running through the program and upon encountering an error, stopping the program dead in its tracks. My program parses documents from two different sources, and currently if the template for one source changes, then the other source's documents are not parsed. What I'd like is if an error is encountered, the input (document) that caused the error is logged, and the rest of the documents are parsed without stopping the "assembly line." I see the continue statement as a way for me to do this, and thus intimately linked with exception handling. I have a hard time figuring out why you think this is bad practice.
On 7/28/05, Danny Yoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tpc, > > I think there's some confusion about the role of 'continue'; it's doesn't > have anything to do with exception handling. > _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
