The Right Approach to Exceptions
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Tue Feb 21 12:15:03 PST 2012
On 2/21/12 1:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:57:20 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/21/12 10:50 AM, Juan Manuel Cabo wrote:
>>> I thought that an alternative to Variant[string] would be to have some
>>> virtual functions overrideable (getExceptionData(string dataName) or
>>> something). but they would all have to return Object or Variant, so it's
>>> the same thing.
>> Exactly. By and large, I think in the fire of the debate too many people
>> in this thread have forgotten to apply a simple OO design principle:
>> push policy up and implementation down. Any good primitive pushed up the
>> exception hierarchy is a huge win, and any design that advocates
>> reliance on concrete types is admitting defeat.
> Exceptions do _not_ lend themselves to polymorphism. Having them in a type
> hierarchy is useful. It allows you to deal with them at varying levels of
> abstractions. But ultimately, you deal with the concrete types, _not_ an
> abstract interface. In that sense, they're not OO _at all_.
Well this is just a series of assertions that conveys no information.
> Adding a Variant[string] property to allow adding on additional information if
> a particular application finds it useful may be a good thing to do. But it
> should be an _add on_, not the core design.
Again, just an assertion.
> Aside from printing strings,
> trying to deal with exceptions generically just does not make sense.
> At best,
> you might care about a common exception rather than a more specific one in
> particular case (e.g. catching IOException rather than FileException). But if
> you're trying to actually handle the exception in any real way rather than
> just print out a message, you need the concrete type, not an abstract
> I think that you're pushing the OO angle too hard onto exceptions.
I thought I was pushing the generics angle, and OO people explained it
to me that that was wrong.
> They're not
> completely separated from it, but they really aren't classic OO and shouldn't
> be treated as such. If anything, they're inverted, because you frequently try
> and deal with as concrete a type as possible rather than as abstract a type as
> possible. The hierarchy aspect is really the only truly OO aspect of
> exceptions IMHO. For the most part, polymorphism just doesn't enter into it.
> And Exception really already declares the few functions where it does.
I'm sorry, I was unable to derive information from this post. It's a
string of assertion without any backing.
More information about the Digitalmars-d