Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I could live with that, too - only that I dislike the general
direction of semantic overloading, instead of keeping things nicely
separated (if they are orthogonal). Daniel's assertNonNull can be used
at tons of other places, not only for this very specific use case.
Depends on the thrown exception - if it's special to this particular
case ...
Having specialized exception types for every single one of those cases
makes even less sense to me.
Off the top of my hat, I'd only consider a distinction between fatal
and non-fatal (for the office process) runtime exceptions to be of any
value (if at all).
Besides this: I'm for a balance between convenience and following the
higher ideals :)
Balance is always nice ;-)
Anyway, if this is such an overwhelmingly common pattern, the way it's
handled is uniform, and you still think UNO_SET_THROW is less to
type than assertNonNull, then, as I
said, I'm ok with that.
Frank,
I am too ok with adding UNO_SET_THROW. Daniel's idea of a non-null
reference class seems not to have caught on too big.
-Stephan
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
