> On 2020-10-20, at 2:40 PM, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de> wrote:
> 
> timrowledge wrote
>> And of course there's always 
>> [thingy doStuff]
>> 	on: MyStuffError
>> 	do: [:ex| ex helpMeObiWanKenobi]
> 
> Though this doesn't work so well to check protocol conformance with on:
> MessageNotUnderstood ("Can I use thingy doStuff or must I use otherThingy
> doFluff instead on this platform?"). 1) thingy might actually implement
> doStuff, but have a different idea of what it means than your code expects,
> 2) unless Obi-Wan very carefully checks the message send that signalled MNU,
> you would also catch all the random type errors the programmers of thingy
> made deep in doStuff.
> 

Yes. Exceptions can be exceptionally perplexing and stressing. This is probably why we too often see use of 'on: Error' etc.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
CITOKATE - Criticism is the Only Known Antidote to Error