Sorry if I jumped the gun, but when it looked
like you were saying "it would be of no benefit
to check for errors if you don't know how to handle
them" I just kind of went crazy.
As for Palm ... they're no help. They've got
routines which have documentation that claims
the routine returns error codes, but instead they
pop up the dialog that kills the program. Your
app doesn't even get a chance to attempt to deal
with the error. Far from "doesn't seem to
go overboard" I'd say they -do- go overboard ...
overreacting to problems that the program may
be able to handle if given the chance that
the docs say they should have.
--
-Richard M. Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Albanowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 9:37 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Q: DmSeekRecordInCategory behavior.
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Richard Hartman wrote:
>
> > If you don't know how to handle it properly, there
> certainly isn't much
> > benefit in doing random fixups, but there is just as certainly no
> > benefit on continuing on as if the error had not occurred.
> >
> > If you get an error you don't know how to handle, the best
> thing to do
> > is STOP. Notify the user. Do not pass "GO", do not
> collect 200 more
> > errors.
>
> Actually, what I went on to describe was a technique that
> allows precisely
> that to happen, but with a reduced burden on the programmer
> due to more
> cooperation from the OS, and without as much
> ambiguity-of-purpose as C++
> exceptions. Just MHO, of course, and certainly no excuse for
> someone to
> skip the error checking in their PalmOS code.
>
> Come to look at it, though, Palm doesn't seem to go overboard with the
> error checking, either. This seems to come down to whether it
> is actually
> worth spending the time and program code space needed for
> every possible
> error check, especially as half the errors essentially can't
> occur unless
> the OS has broken somehow -- Palm's code doesn't check for
> lawnmowers, in
> other words.
>
> Then again, that's not a good example to use: they wrote the
> OS, so they
> might have a better idea were the lawnmowers are hiding...
>
