Hijacking

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Rioshin an'Harthen" <rharth75 at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f974u9$9k1$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> kirjoitti viestissä 
> news:f95leh$hn4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> It might be one of those things like exception specifications where 
>> everyone says it's a good idea but guiltily hate in secret <g>.
>
> Exception specification *is* a good idea. Although I do hate it - try to 
> remember what a specific method may throw when you write your code, 
> especially if the error is ambiguous like "Unhandled exception" it's 
> really irritating - but I hate unspecified exceptions even more, as the 
> problem then is to even remember to put in the necessary try-catch-finally 
> blocks.

Not to start a big big debate on it, but my own personal feeling on that 
(after having used a fair amount of it) is that the specification of 
exceptions belongs in generated documentation (whether javadoc-style or as 
part of the IDE as with "some_function() -> Called By..."). I normally 
prefer having to explicity specify things (yea, strong-typing fan here ;) ), 
but personally, I find it overkill in this case. (Not to mention it gave me 
flashbacks of writing C/C++ headers. j/k ;) ).