2011/3/24 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > 2011/3/24 Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > >> (B) Where you can get away with returning maybes/options, you're making it >>> much harder for code to decide to defer the handling of this error condition >>> to something up the chain. It's also infectious - if as part of doing your >>> thing you could run into errors, then you have to turn whatever you return >>> into an Option/Maybe guard as well. At some point virtually every method >>> returns option/maybe. >>> >> >> Which is exactly what you want, sometimes, and is *exactly* what checked >> exceptions do. >> > > Of course not, exceptions also allow someone else than your direct caller > to handle the error without you having to bubble up this condition manually. > > Exceptions, yes, checked exceptions, no.
As with everyone else here, I have no issue with exceptions per-se, just the anti-patterns that so often arise around the use of *checked* exceptions. > -- > Cédric > > > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
