No, you missed the point: If you make it a warning you need a mechanism to suppress these warnings. And my point was that the only suppression mechanism that doesn't suck, is going to look exactly like throws and sneakyThrows (as in: You'd have to explicitly list WHICH kinds of checked exceptions you want to suppress warnings for).
On Sep 24, 3:43 am, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > How's that different? The only thing you just told me is that you want > > to turn "forgot to do something with checked exception" from error to > > warning, which is close to a no-op in my book - I can delve into the > > eclipse compile settings and change a plethora of problems around from > > error to warning to ignore. > > My point is that it is no different. Just drop "checked" exceptions and you > can move all of that into warning territory. No need for new syntax on top > of it. Further, it doesn't screw up compatibility with existing code. It > may cause someone to start getting a warning when you change your mind about > "sneakily throwing" something, but it will still compile. (Which is > decidedly not the case in your method, no?) > > in other words. As soon as you "allow code to catch non-checked exceptions" > you have essentially already done away with checked exceptions. -- 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.
