On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux < [email protected]> wrote:
> Yikes, I thought it was clear. I mean that people should not be worried > about this swallowed exception because it's intended since no > PatternSyntaxException should not occur there > I can confirm that the comment you have added is not clear, and even the explanatory sentence you wrote above is confusing. > I think it's better to say something than letting the catch empty. It is better to add *useful* information but if you are adding a comment that is stating the obvious then it is better to leave it empty. > Maybe what I said is not what I wanted to say and can be understood in > another way? What did you understand? > When I read your comment: "obviously a PatternSyntaxException should not occur here" I think: "hmmmm... it doesn't seem obvious to me that such an exception should not occur... but if the committer stated it is *obvious* then it means I am missing something" Instead, at least based on your reply to Taher, it seems that you ignore why the catch block was added. > > What would you say? I would either explain why the code is swallowing the runtime exception or remove your comment. Jacopo
