I actually don't mind that idea. My code tends to be warning free and I
shy away from the @SuppressWarning, so for me not much would change.
And I guess people at the other end of the spectrum ignore/suppress
other warnings already, so it might fit with existing patterns for them.
Peter
Casper Bang wrote:
> Why don't we just change checked exception from being an error to
> being a warning? It would not break any kind of compatibility. And as
> a library author, you still get the power to tell your clients that
> here's something to pay special attention to, but without getting in
> the way of people doing fast and ad-hoc prototyping/refactoring/
> debugging.
>
> If this was the default behavior of checked exceptions, I would
> probably be for them. One could even introduce SuppressWarnings
> ("checked") as a cleaner version of Lombok's @SneakyThrows. I have a
> javac where this has been done (along with converting
> UnreachableStatement to a warning and allow checked exception catch
> without a throw) and it appears to work nicely.
>
> /Casper
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
