Hi David,
On Jan 8, 2010, at 12:16 AM, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Peter Jones said the following on 01/08/10 15:00:
>> Hi. Another nit: the wordings below seem to imply that "new Error()" and
>> "new RuntimeException()" (i.e. not subclasses) make checked exceptions, but
>> of course they are unchecked too.
>
> What wording do you think implies this?
>
> These are quite clear:
>
> + * That is, {...@code Error} and its subclasses are regarded as unchecked
> + * exceptions for the purposes of compile-time checking of exceptions.
>
> + * <p>{...@code RuntimeException} and its subclasses are <em>unchecked
> + * exceptions</em>.
Yes, those seem fine-- I was referring to the excerpts that you had quoted
earlier, from the Exception and Throwable docs:
>>>> + * <p>The class {...@code Exception} and any subclasses that are not also
>>>> + * subclasses of {...@link RuntimeException} are <em>checked
>>>> + * exceptions</em>.
>>>>
>>>> + * For the purposes of compile-time checking of exceptions, {...@code
>>>> + * Throwable} and any subclass of {...@code Throwable} that is not also a
>>>> + * subclass of either {...@link RuntimeException} or {...@link Error} are
>>>> + * regarded as checked exceptions.
In JLS usage I don't think that subclass is a reflexive relation (like subtype
is). Compare the section 11.2 wording, "RuntimeException and its subclasses",
etc.:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/exceptions.html#44121
Cheers,
-- Peter
