The Right Approach to Exceptions
mips at intel.arm
Sat Feb 18 17:56:39 PST 2012
On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 01:29:40 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
> Another one for the file of "Crazy shit Andrei says" ;)
> From experience, I (and clearly many others here) find a
> sparse, flat exception hierarchy to be problematic and
> limiting. But even with a rich detailed exception hierarchy,
> those (ie, Andrei) who want to limit themselves to catching
> course-grained exceptions can do so, thanks to the nature of
> subtyping. So why are we even discussing this?
How about we revisit ancient design decisions which once held
true... but no longer is the case due to our "god-language" being
In my experience an "exception hierarchy" is never good enough,
it suffers from the same problems as most frameworks also do...
they simplify/destroy too much info of from the original error.
ex why don't we throw a closure? Of course we could go crazy with
mixins and CTFE,CTTI,RTTI aswell... imho the goal should not be
to do as good as java, the goal is progress! Java should copy our
design if anything... we could have a very rich exception
structure... without the need for a hierarchy.
try(name) // try extended to support full closure syntax
DIR* dir = opendir(toStringz(name));
if(dir==0 && errno==ENOTDIR)
throw; // throws the entire try block as a closure
More information about the Digitalmars-d