People have suggested similar keywords - I don't like the idea of
wrapping in a RuntimeException, but as we know, checked exceptions are
a figment of Java's imagination and are simply enforced by the
compiler.
Why not simply allow them to bubble up as their original exception,
just remove the need for checking them.
void thing() coverts IOException {
}
Does anyone know, if you were to remove the throws declarations from a
method in a class, would the JVM still validate the class file, if the
method was clearly throwing checked exceptions? I assume it would
allow it. I guess this is how Scala works.
On Aug 19, 11:06 am, Alex Buckley <alex.buck...@sun.com> wrote:
> I'm slightly embarrassed to admit I'm a fan
> ofhttp://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6534270
>
> On Aug 15, 5:56 am, Jeff Grigg <jeffgr...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I like the beauty and simplicity of completely empty catch blocks. >;->
> > OK, some developers, to comply with corporate documentation
>
> > standards, put comments there. >;->
>
> > (Reality is that I'll usually wrap checked exceptions in
> > RuntimeExceptions at a low level, and then catch Exception at the top
> > level -- to log it and abort or retry the transaction or user action.
> > There's a lot of really bad code out there that misuses exceptions and
> > does exception handling cleanup wrong. It's a problem!!)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
