Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:41:29 Shin Fujishiro wrote: > > By the way, it feels redundant for me to name every exception class > > with an ending Exception, especially descriptive ones such as > > ConvOverflowException. Couldn't it be ConversionOverflow? > > It's clearer and more consistent to have Exception in the name. It makes it > nice > and obvious that you're dealing with an exception type, and it's not like > youe > have to type them very often anyway. Also, what would you do for stuff like > std.datetime? It has DateTimeException. It's not like you can change it to > DateTime. Not only would that be a bad name (since its name is not indicative > of > an exception or error at all), but there's already a separate DateTime type. > > FWIW, all of the exceptions in Java have Exception in their name, and as far > as > I recall, every exception class that I've used in any other language has had > Exception or exception in its name. It makes it nice and clear that you're > dealing with an exception type, and while some might be able leave it out - > like > ConversionOverflow - that leads to inconsistency with all of the exception > types > which need it in order to make it clear that they're actually an error of > some > sort. > > So, I definitely think that in Phobos and Druntime we should have Exception > as > the suffix for all Throwables descended from Exception and Error as the > suffix for > all Throwables descended from Error. It's clear and consistent that way.
Yeah, I agree that suffixed Exceptions are very clear. I wrote it because std.concurrency has non-suffixed exceptions such as MessageMismatch, which are still clear thanks to negative terms embedded in their names. Shin _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
