On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 23.06.2015, at 23:23, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why not vice versa? Halt being a Warning would be more natural to me
> than Warning being
> >>> a Halt.
> >>
> >> We really should structure the class hierarchy based on the exception
> >> handling use-cases we want to support, not semantics.  If Halt
> >> inherited from Warning, then applications would no longer be able to
> >> halt separately from handling Warnings (except by handling Halt too,
> >> no way!).
> >
> > Then they should be siblings in any case.
>
> Should these have a new superclass whose name echos their common
> handling wrt to the debugger?
> (not that I'm clear on what that name would be)
> cheers -ben
>
> I would vote no.  If we really want to tie them together that closely,
maybe we should use Traits to enforce that similar behavior.

While we want them to behave similarly, they feel quite different in intent
to me, at least.

-cbc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20150624/40549ff5/attachment.htm