On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 05:31, Craig McClanahan wrote: > How about two lines, which you can already do today? > > try { > ... > } catch (Exception e) { > ... > }
The problem with such approach is that it catches all exception, checked or not (see below) > seems to be a standarized "log it and exit" or "log it and rethrow it > in a wrapper exception" strategy, which you can deal with quite > easily. That makes sense for checked exceptions. For instance, when you use reflection to invoke a method, you have to handle 2 or 3 checked exceptions, which you typically want to just log and exit as you described. But if you use a generic catch( Exception e ), you would catch unchecked exception as well (like NullPointerException). > Sheesh, hasn't anyone ever heard of inheritance around here? :-) Ask the java.lang folks :-) I mean, there is a good 'inheritance chain' of Throwable -> Exception -> RuntimeException -> TheException for unchecked exceptions, but for checked exceptions is just Throwable -> Exception -> TheException ; I think there is a missing class there. If we had something like this: Throwable -> Exception -> UncheckedException -> RuntimeException Throwable -> Exception -> CheckedException Or even just: Throwable -> Exception -> RuntimeException Throwable -> Exception -> CheckedException Then your idea would make sense: we could just use the CheckedException, without the need for changing the language sintaxe (just the API and maybe some internal structures in the VM). -- Felipe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]