except:pass构造本质上是在运行try:块中包含的代码时，使出现的任何和所有异常条件保持沉默。

这种糟糕的做法是因为它通常不是你真正想要的。更常见的情况是，出现一些特定的情况，你想要保持沉默，除了:pass是一个太生硬的工具。它将完成工作，但它也会掩盖其他错误条件，您可能没有预料到，但可能非常希望以其他方式处理。

What makes this particularly important in Python is that by the idioms of this language, exceptions are not necessarily errors. They're often used this way, of course, just as in most languages. But Python in particular has occasionally used them to implement an alternative exit path from some code tasks which isn't really part of the normal running case, but is still known to come up from time to time and may even be expected in most cases. SystemExit has already been mentioned as an old example, but the most common example nowadays may be StopIteration. Using exceptions this way caused a lot of controversy, especially when iterators and generators were first introduced to Python, but eventually the idea prevailed.

执行你的伪代码甚至不会给出任何错误:

try:
    something
except:
    pass

就好像它是一段完全有效的代码，而不是抛出NameError。我希望这不是你想要的。

>>> 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。

我正在构建一个将在数据中心运行的应用程序。它不应该生成任何错误或引发任何异常。我的数据中心有一个网络监控系统，其中包括一个SNMP trap接收器。

try:
    main()
except as e:
    log(str(e))
    send_snmp_trap(str(e))
    raise

但是这个加薪不会有任何效果因为它是和任何可能剩下的堆栈的底部。

顺便说一句，这不是万能的灵丹妙药。有一些例外情况是无法被发现的。SNMP不能保证传输。YMMV。

那么，这段代码产生了什么输出呢?

fruits = [ 'apple', 'pear', 'carrot', 'banana' ]

found = False
try:
     for i in range(len(fruit)):
         if fruits[i] == 'apple':
             found = true
except:
     pass

if found:
    print "Found an apple"
else:
    print "No apples in list"

现在，想象一下try-except块是对复杂对象层次结构的数百行调用，并且本身是在大型程序的调用树中间调用的。当程序出问题时，你从哪里开始寻找?

为什么“except: pass”是一种糟糕的编程实践? 这为什么不好呢? 试一试: 某物 除了: 通过

这将捕获所有可能的异常，包括GeneratorExit、KeyboardInterrupt和SystemExit——这些异常可能是您不打算捕获的。这和捕获BaseException是一样的。

try:
    something
except BaseException:
    pass

旧版本的文档说:

由于Python中的每个错误都会引发异常，使用except:可以使许多编程错误看起来像运行时问题，从而阻碍调试过程。

Python异常层次结构

如果您捕获了一个父异常类，那么您也捕获了它们的所有子类。只捕获准备处理的异常要优雅得多。

下面是Python 3的异常层次结构——你真的想把它们都捕捉到吗?：

BaseException
 +-- SystemExit
 +-- KeyboardInterrupt
 +-- GeneratorExit
 +-- Exception
      +-- StopIteration
      +-- StopAsyncIteration
      +-- ArithmeticError
      |    +-- FloatingPointError
      |    +-- OverflowError
      |    +-- ZeroDivisionError
      +-- AssertionError
      +-- AttributeError
      +-- BufferError
      +-- EOFError
      +-- ImportError
           +-- ModuleNotFoundError
      +-- LookupError
      |    +-- IndexError
      |    +-- KeyError
      +-- MemoryError
      +-- NameError
      |    +-- UnboundLocalError
      +-- OSError
      |    +-- BlockingIOError
      |    +-- ChildProcessError
      |    +-- ConnectionError
      |    |    +-- BrokenPipeError
      |    |    +-- ConnectionAbortedError
      |    |    +-- ConnectionRefusedError
      |    |    +-- ConnectionResetError
      |    +-- FileExistsError
      |    +-- FileNotFoundError
      |    +-- InterruptedError
      |    +-- IsADirectoryError
      |    +-- NotADirectoryError
      |    +-- PermissionError
      |    +-- ProcessLookupError
      |    +-- TimeoutError
      +-- ReferenceError
      +-- RuntimeError
      |    +-- NotImplementedError
      |    +-- RecursionError
      +-- SyntaxError
      |    +-- IndentationError
      |         +-- TabError
      +-- SystemError
      +-- TypeError
      +-- ValueError
      |    +-- UnicodeError
      |         +-- UnicodeDecodeError
      |         +-- UnicodeEncodeError
      |         +-- UnicodeTranslateError
      +-- Warning
           +-- DeprecationWarning
           +-- PendingDeprecationWarning
           +-- RuntimeWarning
           +-- SyntaxWarning
           +-- UserWarning
           +-- FutureWarning
           +-- ImportWarning
           +-- UnicodeWarning
           +-- BytesWarning
           +-- ResourceWarning

不要这样做

如果你使用这种形式的异常处理:

try:
    something
except: # don't just do a bare except!
    pass

然后你就不能用Ctrl-C来中断你的something块了。您的程序将忽略try代码块中所有可能的异常。

下面是另一个同样有不良行为的例子:

except BaseException as e: # don't do this either - same as bare!
    logging.info(e)

相反，尝试只捕获您知道正在寻找的特定异常。例如，如果你知道你可能会在一个转换中得到一个值错误:

try:
    foo = operation_that_includes_int(foo)
except ValueError as e:
    if fatal_condition(): # You can raise the exception if it's bad,
        logging.info(e)   # but if it's fatal every time,
        raise             # you probably should just not catch it.
    else:                 # Only catch exceptions you are prepared to handle.
        foo = 0           # Here we simply assign foo to 0 and continue. 

用另一个例子进一步解释

您可能会这样做，因为您已经进行了web抓取并得到了一个UnicodeError，但因为您使用了最广泛的异常捕获，您的代码可能有其他基本缺陷，将试图运行到完成，浪费带宽，处理时间，磨损您的设备，耗尽内存，收集垃圾数据等。

如果其他人要求你完成，这样他们就可以依赖你的代码，我理解那种被迫处理所有事情的感觉。但如果你愿意在开发过程中遭遇失败，你就有机会纠正那些偶尔出现的问题，但这将是代价高昂的长期错误。

有了更精确的错误处理，代码就会更加健壮。