The Right Approach to Exceptions
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Mon Feb 20 13:11:11 PST 2012
On 2/20/12 2:51 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2012 17:31:28 Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
>>> Sure. Again, this is not advocating replacement of exception hierarchies
>>> with tables! ...
>> I think that the case of rethrowing an exception with added detail is the
>> worst enemy of clean Exception hierarchies.
>> The idea of Variant[string] remedies that case without creating a new
>> exception class just for the added fields. If that case is solved, then the
>> tipical need for creating new exception types that don't really aid
>> selecting them for catching and recovery is solved too.
> Having derived exceptions with additional information is a _huge_ boon, and I
> contend that it's vasty better with variant, which would be highly error
> prone, because it's not properly statically checked. Changes to what's put in
> the variant could kill code at runtime - code which by its very definiton is
> not supposed to be the normal code path, so you're less likely to actually run
> into the problem before you ship your product. Whereas with the information in
> actual member variables, if they get changed, you get a compilation error, and
> you know that you have to fix your code.
> Rethrowing is a separate issue. And in many cases, the correct thing to do is
> to chain exceptions. You catch one, do something with it, and then you throw a
> new one which took the first one as an argument. Then you get both. That
> functionality is already built into Exception.
I think we'd be quick to dismiss Juan's point. There are many execution
contexts for any given exception, and summarily saying that we'll handle
them with distinct types doesn't sound exactly scalable. I've long
wanted to be able to plant context information in a scope, that was
automatically added to any exception possibly leaving that scope.
More information about the Digitalmars-d