Hi Daniel, > personally, I don't like those _THROW enums anymore and think I was > wrong to add them some years ago.
Sad. I begin to really like them, as it *really* shortens the code. > Sure, the need to enforce API > constraints programmatically is still a valid point, e.g. a method > returning a null reference though the API stated the returned ref is > never null has to lead to a RuntimeException. > But I rather would like this decoupled, e.g. > > Reference<foo::XBar> x(y->baz()[, UNO_QUERY]); > assureNotNull(x); > > IMO more verbose, but clearer to read. If it's about clarity in reading, we could name UNO_QUERY_THROW UNO_QUERY_ASSURE instead ... I don't like the additional line. That's basically how it's done today, and this really becomes cumbersome over time. Writing the same pattern again and again isn't really fun. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
