Andrew Haley wrote: > > Why? I don't see how you can reasonably continue given that an > > arbitrary functionality that the application depends on is missing. > > Think about the "programming by contract" metaphor: the application is > a customer, and the implementation is a contractor. It is not up to a > contractor to decide whether failure to do a particular job should > cause the whole project to be cancelled. That decision rests soley > with the customer. That is because the contractor does not know how > important a particular job is. > > An application can decide to carry on, and is perfectly entitled to do > so.
IMHO, this comparison is misleading because applications cannot "decide" anything. The programmer is the one doing the deciding. If an application doesn't explicitly target Classpath, it is unreasonable to expect the programmer to deal with this failure. If the programmer is targeting Classpath, it is easy enough to handle the NYI exception. Maybe we should have a static method instead of directly throwing an exception, that way it is easy to change the behavior. Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
