我个人更喜欢这个解决方案:

except ValueError as error:
                print(error.args)
                pass

错误。Args给了我一个简单的代码行，它不会太分散人的注意力，但确实有助于代码审查，特别是如果错误有不同的原因，比如

(ValueError('year 0 is out of range'),)
(ValueError('month must be in 1..12'),)
(ValueError('day is out of range for month'),)

当研究熊猫的时间周期时。

你至少应该使用except Exception:来避免捕获系统异常，如SystemExit或KeyboardInterrupt。这里是文档链接。

一般来说，您应该显式地定义想要捕获的异常，以避免捕获不想要的异常。您应该知道您忽略了哪些异常。

>>> import this

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than right now. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

所以，这是我的观点。每当你发现一个错误，你应该做一些事情来处理它，即把它写在日志文件或其他东西。至少，它告诉您曾经有一个错误。

In my opinion errors have a reason to appear, that my sound stupid, but thats the way it is. Good programming only raises errors when you have to handle them. Also, as i read some time ago, "the pass-Statement is a Statement that Shows code will be inserted later", so if you want to have an empty except-statement feel free to do so, but for a good program there will be a part missing. because you dont handle the things you should have. Appearing exceptions give you the chance to correct input data or to change your data structure so these exceptions dont occur again (but in most cases (Network-exceptions, General input-exceptions) exceptions indicate that the next parts of the program wont execute well. For example a NetworkException can indicate a broken network-connection and the program cant send/recieve data in the next program steps.

但是只对一个执行块使用pass块是有效的，因为你仍然可以区分不同类型的异常，所以如果你把所有的异常块放在一个中，它就不是空的:

try:
    #code here
except Error1:
    #exception handle1

except Error2:
    #exception handle2
#and so on

可以写成这样:

try:
    #code here
except BaseException as e:
    if isinstance(e, Error1):
        #exception handle1

    elif isinstance(e, Error2):
        #exception handle2

    ...

    else:
        raise

因此，即使是多个带有pass语句的异常块也可能导致代码，其结构处理特殊类型的异常。

这里的主要问题是它忽略所有和任何错误:内存不足，CPU正在燃烧，用户想要停止，程序想要退出，Jabberwocky正在杀死用户。

这太过分了。在你的脑海中，你在想“我想忽略这个网络错误”。如果出现了意想不到的错误，那么您的代码将继续以完全不可预测的方式中断，没有人可以调试。

这就是为什么您应该限制自己只忽略一些错误，而让其余的错误过去。

首先，它违背了Python的两个禅宗原则:

显性比隐性好 错误绝不能悄无声息地过去

它的意思是，你故意让你的错误悄无声息地过去。此外，您不知道究竟发生了哪个错误，因为except: pass将捕获任何异常。

其次，如果我们试图从Python的禅意中抽象出来，而只是从理智的角度来说话，你应该知道，使用except:pass会让你在系统中失去知识和控制。经验法则是，如果发生错误，就引发异常，并采取适当的操作。如果你事先不知道这些操作应该是什么，至少在某个地方记录错误(最好重新引发异常):

try:
    something
except:
    logger.exception('Something happened')

但是，通常情况下，如果您试图捕获任何异常，那么您可能正在做错误的事情!