<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Ben Coman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:btc@openinworld.com" target="_blank">btc@openinworld.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Tobias Pape <<a href="mailto:Das.Linux@gmx.de">Das.Linux@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 23.06.2015, at 23:23, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>>> Why not vice versa? Halt being a Warning would be more natural to me than Warning being<br>
>>> a Halt.<br>
>><br>
>> We really should structure the class hierarchy based on the exception<br>
>> handling use-cases we want to support, not semantics. If Halt<br>
>> inherited from Warning, then applications would no longer be able to<br>
>> halt separately from handling Warnings (except by handling Halt too,<br>
>> no way!).<br>
><br>
> Then they should be siblings in any case.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Should these have a new superclass whose name echos their common<br>
handling wrt to the debugger?<br>
(not that I'm clear on what that name would be)<br>
cheers -ben<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>I would vote no. If we really want to tie them together that closely, maybe we should use Traits to enforce that similar behavior.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">While we want them to behave similarly, they feel quite different in intent to me, at least.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-cbc</div></div>