:26 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items
I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use
for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way,
while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want
Am Sa, 2004-11-20 um 08.31 schrieb Craig McClanahan:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
...
How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
try {
}
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 05:31, Craig McClanahan wrote:
How about two lines, which you can already do today?
try {
...
} catch (Exception e) {
...
}
The problem with such approach is that it catches all exception, checked
or not (see below)
seems to be a standarized log it and exit or
I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use
for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way,
while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want to
propogate.
This is a good thing, because often I've seen code that catches
Exception for
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
...
How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
try {
} catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
}
or possibly even:
try {
} catch( (JMSException | RemoteException |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
...
How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
try {
} catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
}
or
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:35, Henri Yandell wrote:
2/
How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
try {
} catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
}
or possibly even:
try {
} catch( (JMSException | RemoteException |
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:35:04 -0400 (EDT), Henri Yandell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I actually love closures, and think it would be a great addition to Java. I
spend a lot of time tracking down poorly written try/finally blocks in
people's code
A definite +1 for multiple exceptions in a catch{} block.
I have had a number of times I have wanted to do this,
but have had to create a private method and refer all
catch{} blocks to it.
Dan Lydick
[Original Message]
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General
try {
} catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
}
+1
(We used to have something like that in Smalltalk)
Gary
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo
