So checked "exceptions" are to handle situations that, although not ideal, are still far from exceptional?
On 23 September 2010 20:21, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Because there's use in having the compiler be your pair programmer. > It's nice when your compiler tells you: Hey, uh, did you think about > FileNotFoundException? > > I'm just asking for the ability to say: Yes, I did, thanks for > reminding me - without having to jump through bizarre hoops like you > have to do today. > > That's what checked exceptions ought to be: This condition is usually > both expectable and handleable, so please remind my API user. > > On Sep 23, 9:01 pm, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > Obviously, when sneakyThrows becomes part of the language, you remove > > > the compile-time restriction that you can't catch checked exceptions > > > that nothing in the try body throws. We're discussing an idea here, I > > > didn't feel the need to submit an entire spec. > > > > Why invent "sneakyThrows" when you could just drop the checked > requirement? > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
