Using try vs if in python

You often hear that Python encourages EAFP style ("it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission") over LBYL style ("look before you leap"). To me, it's a matter of efficiency and readability.

In your example (say that instead of returning a list or an empty string, the function were to return a list or None), if you expect that 99 % of the time result will actually contain something iterable, I'd use the try/except approach. It will be faster if exceptions really are exceptional. If result is None more than 50 % of the time, then using if is probably better.

To support this with a few measurements:

>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.timeit(setup="a=1;b=1", stmt="a/b") # no error checking
0.06379691968322732
>>> timeit.timeit(setup="a=1;b=1", stmt="try:\n a/b\nexcept ZeroDivisionError:\n pass")
0.0829463709378615
>>> timeit.timeit(setup="a=1;b=0", stmt="try:\n a/b\nexcept ZeroDivisionError:\n pass")
0.5070195056614466
>>> timeit.timeit(setup="a=1;b=1", stmt="if b!=0:\n a/b")
0.11940114974277094
>>> timeit.timeit(setup="a=1;b=0", stmt="if b!=0:\n a/b")
0.051202772912802175

So, whereas an if statement always costs you, it's nearly free to set up a try/except block. But when an Exception actually occurs, the cost is much higher.

Moral:

• It's perfectly OK (and "pythonic") to use try/except for flow control,
• but it makes sense most when Exceptions are actually exceptional.

From the Python docs:

EAFP

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. This common Python coding style assumes the existence of valid keys or attributes and catches exceptions if the assumption proves false. This clean and fast style is characterized by the presence of many try and except statements. The technique contrasts with the LBYL style common to many other languages such as C.

Generally, the impression I've gotten is that exceptions should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. If the result is expected never to be empty (but might be, if, for instance, a disk crashed, etc), the second approach makes sense. If, on the other hand, an empty result is perfectly reasonable under normal conditions, testing for it with an if statement makes more sense.

I had in mind the (more common) scenario:

# keep access counts for different files
file_counts={}
...
# got a filename somehow
if filename not in file_counts:
    file_counts[filename]=0
file_counts[filename]+=1

instead of the equivalent:

...
try:
    file_counts[filename]+=1
except KeyError:
    file_counts[filename]=1

Please ignore my solution if the code I provide is not obvious at first glance and you have to read the explanation after the code sample.

Can I assume that the "no value returned" means the return value is None? If yes, or if the "no value" is False boolean-wise, you can do the following, since your code essentially treats "no value" as "do not iterate":

for r in function() or ():
    # process items

If function() returns something that's not True, you iterate over the empty tuple, i.e. you don't run any iterations. This is essentially LBYL.

Your function should not return mixed types (i.e. list or empty string). It should return a list of values or just an empty list. Then you wouldn't need to test for anything, i.e. your code collapses to:

for r in function():
    # process items