Lubos Lunak wrote: > > - rtl::OUString > > + OUString > > You cannot compare these with exception specifications. The examples above, > barring very corner cases, are only about readability and nothing else, while > exception specifications are not. Arguing that we should remove exception > specifications is more like arguing that we should remove all asserts. > While I'm not standing in the way of keeping them, I still consider them useless in 99% of all cases (quite in contrast to asserts). That might be coloured by personal experience, frequency of finding bugs with it (~zero), and the general unspecificity (or should I say, thoughtlessness) of their use throughout the API.
For large parts of UNO, making one not violate the exception
specification, would look like this:
try {
<functions>
} catch(...) {
throw uno::RuntimeException("Arrgh! General $FOO error!!1!");
}
That is not what I would call error handling.
Mixing ivory-tower musing about ES usefulness & hand-waving
arguments about developers paying attention to their
self-documenting presence, and the real, actual benefits they bring
(or don't bring) to our UNO API implementation is at least not
getting us the ideal solution. ;)
My 2 cents,
-- Thorsten
pgp6pgOc2V7xV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
