FYI, I remember reading somehwere that adding runtime exceptions to a method's throws clause is considered by Sun to be a bad practice.
However, after taking a quick look around online, I can't seem to find a reference to this anywhere. Maybe I'm mistaken. On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 15:13, Phil Steitz wrote: > Brent Worden wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 4:21 PM > >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >>Subject: [math] @throws IllegalArgumentException > >> > >> > >>I am dutifully cleaning up the CheckStyle warnings in my code and I am > >>hesitating to remove @throws IllegalArgumentException, which CheckStyle > >>currently complains about. I am a little ambivalent about this. There > >>is a property (checkstyle.javadoc.checkUnusedThrows) that we can set to > >>make it ignore these. I notice that [lang] has this set to false. I > >>actually prefer to leave these "unused throws tags" in. Any strong > >>opinions on this? > >> > >>Phil > >> > > > > > > I have no problem with it. > > > > A better alternative might be to explicitly add runtime exceptions to the > > throws clause of methods. This doesn't effect callers as they're still not > > required to add try-catch blocks. Plus, we could then leave the check enable > > to catch any actual violations. > > Much better idea. Thanks. Thought I had tried that, but I now see that > it works. > > Phil > > > > > Brent Worden > > http://www.brent.worden.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
