Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> writes: > That could be a good tradeoff. Users are developer but (although I'm not sure > if > it really happened yet) are not the rvgen developers, they don't need to know > where exactly the code complained, unless it really broke. > All errors that are expected (OSError or wrong format) should have a > meaningful > message for the user, I believe by doing that we'd have a pretty clear idea > where the error came from in the code too (e.g. event parsing, opening a file, > etc.). > > If the code has a bug, then yes we should throw the exception as is, that's > why > I think it's good not to catch Exception, but to catch only the few exceptions > we know can happen, all others would be bugs.
I second this. We should only catch expected exceptions (e.g. the .dot file is malformed) and print meaningful message. Otherwise, just leave it uncaught. While working with rvgen, I usually just remove the try-catch, because it takes away all the useful debug information while not offering anything else. Nam
