On Jan 25, 2:07 am, dysinger <t...@dysinger.net> wrote: > (try (with-open [x y] ... ) > (catch Exception)) ;; <- catches any exception from with-open macro > > I don't think you are correct.
Maybe this is subjective, but I am rarely interested in knowing what exception does .close() throw - I would like it ignored. Let me explain. Catching 'Exception' over with-open does not solve things, for example: 1. If the try block returns a value, and .close() raises an IOException - that breaks my expectation because I am interested in the try block, not .close(). 2. If the try block raises exception 'A' and .close() raises exception B - that changes semantics for me because (a) I might have, for example, setup transaction-strategy based on the types of exception thrown, (b) the exception 'A' is lost and I never come to know about it. Regards, Shantanu -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
