The Right Approach to Exceptions

[Nick Sabalausky]

"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.