Class returning None ?

[George Marshall]

Hi, I'm wondering, what's the best way to check for
success or failure on object initialization ?

This is my ugly workaround to do that :

class mytest:
status=0
def __init__ (self):
status=1

_mytest = mytest()

def mytest ():
if everythingok():
return _mytest()
else:
return None

def everythingok():
return False

def main():
a=mytest()
if a==None:
return 1

if __name__ == "__main__"
main()


What's the python way to do that ?

Thanks.

[Cliff Wells]

Re: Class returning None ?

On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 00:43, George Marshall wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi, I'm wondering, what's the best way to check for
> success or failure on object initialization ?[/color]

Raise an exception.

[color=blue]
> This is my ugly workaround to do that :[/color]

[snip]
[color=blue]
> What's the python way to do that ?[/color]

from exceptions import Exception

class SomeError(Excep tion): pass

class mytest:
def __init__(self):
if not everythingok():
raise SomeError

def main():
try:
a = mytest()
except SomeError:
return 1

Regards,
Cliff

--
Pushing the stone up the hill of failure
-Swans

[Aahz]

Re: Class returning None ?

In article <mailman.791.10 75107363.12720. python-list@python.org >,
Cliff Wells <clifford.wells @comcast.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>from exceptions import Exception
>class SomeError(Excep tion): pass[/color]

BTW, there's no need to do this. ``Exception`` lives in the built-in
namespace.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code --
not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death." --GvR

[Cliff Wells]

Re: Class returning None ?

On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 06:33, Aahz wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <mailman.791.10 75107363.12720. python-list@python.org >,
> Cliff Wells <clifford.wells @comcast.net> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> >from exceptions import Exception
> >class SomeError(Excep tion): pass[/color]
>
> BTW, there's no need to do this. ``Exception`` lives in the built-in
> namespace.[/color]

Er, explicit is better than implicit? ;-)

Somehow I never noticed that.

Regards,
Cliff

--
So sad, love lies there still
-Bauhaus