On 23/09/2010, at 11:12 AM, Josh McDonald <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey guys, I'm not weighing in on checked v unchecked, just a syntax sugar
> idea!
>
> We've got two ifs:
>
> if (foo)
> bar();
>
> and
>
> if (foo) {
> bar();
> }
>
> So why not introduce a cut-down syntax for common exceptions? Something like
> this:
I believe it's fair to say the second firm if ifs an it's cousins while loops
etc without braces are considered bad form because it's too easy to insert a
statement inside and forget to enclose in braces afterwards if necessary.
>
> try file=File.open(...) catch(SomeException se, OtherException oe);
>
> Which would be expanded out by the compiler to this:
>
> SomeException se = null;
> OtherException oe = null;
>
> try {
> file = File.open(...);
> } catch (SomeException e) {
> se = e;
> } catch (OtherException e) {
> oe = e;
> }
>
> And you can check the contents of the exception or not at your leisure.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
>
> Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> - [email protected]
> - http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
> - http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
