The Right Approach to Exceptions

[address_is at invalid.invalid]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:jhr81v$2i3r$3 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 2/19/12 9:56 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote in message
>>> news:jhr0vq$24t0$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> 
>>>> This is self-evident. Again, the meaning of "recoverable" is "operation
>>>> may succeed if retried with the same input". It's a hint for the catch
>>>> code. Of course the program is free to ignore that aspect, retry a 
>>>> number
>>>> of times, log, display user feedback, and so on. But as far as 
>>>> definition
>>>> goes the notion is cut and dried.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> WTF? "Recoverable" means "can be recovered from". Period. The term 
>>> doesn't
>>> have a damn thing to do with "how", even in the context of exceptions. It
>>> *never* has. If you meant it as "operation may succeed if retried with 
>>> the
>>> same input", then fine, but don't pretend that *your* arbitrary 
>>> definition
>>> is "cut and dried".
>> 
>> I think it's a reasonable definition of "can be recovered from" in the 
>> context of exceptions.
>> 
> 
> Reasonable maybe, but not obvious. That's all I'm trying to say.

I guess "transient" is more descriptive.

Andrei