On 6-Mar-06, at 10:22 AM, Chris Muller wrote:

>> I'm sure that it is possible to make a system for
>> using exceptions
>> that is clear, intelligable and well engineered. We
>> just don't have
>> one yet.
>
> Hm.  Well, I find Squeaks exceptions clear,
> intelligble and well-engineered enough that they at
> least seem to work (though I can't speak for the
> innards).  Any programmer can learn about their
> features in just a few minutes by simply
> experiementing with them.
I'd accept that the exceptions are reasonably clear but the _system_  
for using them isn't. As I mentioned it is quite hard too work out  
for example where the exception you are raising might get handled.  
It's close to impossible to be sure which exceptions you might need  
to deal with.

>
> Have you used Java exceptions?  They unwind *before*
> the handler (making debugging difficult).  They can't
> ever resume, they've no defaultActions, no retries,
> and no pass without rethrowing.  I find all of these
> functions useful, so Java exception
I'm happy to say I've never had to do anything at all with java  
except drink it. It sounds awful.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: RPM: Read Programmer's Mind