Andy Walter writes: > Hi Andrew, > > On Monday 29 September 2003 19:40, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Throwing an appropriate message will help, of course, but one of > > the advantages of gcj is that you can pre-link and you know you > > won't get runtime linkage errors -- the linker has resolved > > everything. Having dummy implementations loses this gcj > > advantage. > > Dummy implementations that do nothing are a really bad thing, I > agree. But a dummy implementation that either returns with the > correct result or throws a NYIException makes it clear to the user > what had happened. > > Currently, we have those dummy methods anyway - and can't get rid > of them, because some methods are partly, but not completely, > implemented. With a new Exception class, the gcj linker could stop > with an error message when such a method is instantiated and > thrown.
Err, no. Linking happens at link time; throwing happens at runtime! But this gives me an idea. I can parse the class at compile time, and if I see any references to a method that throws such an exception I can warn the user about it. That would be *much* better. It wouldn't be complete because there might be partly implemented subclasses that aren't directly referenced, but it would be better than nothing. > If we abuse any existing JDK Exeption for it, this would not be > possible. True. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
