From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d3cb5920e882220 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Exceptions Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:45:32 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <5947aa62-2547-4fbb-bc46-1111b4a0dcc9@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1197236732 11582 192.74.137.71 (9 Dec 2007 21:45:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:45:32 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fi/ISHg1YaWG/kxH/bTuzz/AVTs= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18830 Date: 2007-12-09T16:45:32-05:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > I think this would be a very bad idea. I don't want to be forced to > deal with the exception 'here' when it would be better handled by my > caller. But this would only apply to some exceptions. If you don't want to be "forced", use an unchecked exception. I think there are some mistakes in the Java design for exceptions, but I don't think the whole idea of exception contracts is bad. - Bob