In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Aahz wrote: > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >> Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used > >>>them but have been coming around about them. There's just been too > >>>many times when I wrote something in Python that crashed because some > >>>lower-level function raised an exception that the upper level hadn't > >>>been expecting, after the program had been in use for a while. I'd > >>>sure rather find out about that at compile time. > >> > >> That's funny -- Bruce Eckel talks about how he used to love checked > >> exceptions but has come to regard them as the horror that they are. > >> I've learned to just write "throws Exception" at the declaration of > >> every method. > > > >Pretty sloppy, though, no? And surely the important thing is to have a > >broad handler, not a broad specification of raisable exceptions? > > Yes, it's sloppy, but I Don't Care. I'm trying to write usable code > while learning a damnably under-documented Java library -- and I'm *not* > a Java programmer in the first place, so I'm also fighting with the Java > environment. Eventually I'll add in some better code.
The whole point of exceptions is that they get propagated automatically. If I'm not going to catch it, why do I have to even know it exists? I don't consider "throws Exception" to be sloppy, I consider it to be programmers voting with their feet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list