[UI] Compiler messages

[Bill Schwab]

Tim,

You are correct that it would be better to log the information vs.
supressing it entirely.  You compiler subclass idea should allow that,
and w/o the burden of doing something that has to be adopted by the
wider community in order to have remotely lasting value.

I still think that exceptions are an inefficient solution to this
particular problem.  It strikes me as being similar to using #on:do: to
protect #at: when #at:ifAbsent: can suffice.  Exceptions of course have
the power to "tunnel across the stack," but in this case, I suspect an
optional context argument or extension of one that already exists is the
preferred approach.  #on:do: has overhead even if the exception is not
raised, and even more if it is raised.  It seems a heavy price to pay
when loading large amounts of code.

Bill




Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bschwab at anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029


>>> tim at rowledge.org 11/13/2007 2:17 PM >>>

On 13-Nov-07, at 10:50 AM, Bill Schwab wrote:

> Tim,
>
> I take exception:

I'll raise your exception...

>

I don't think you actually want to prevent the error messages (aside  
from the radical approach that I've always tried to follow - don't  
make mistakes) as such. Error messages are the weakness leaving the  
code. Catch it and squeeze it to extract the truthiness for
reinsertion.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim 
"Bother" said Pooh, when Piglet stubbed his fag out on the semtex.


_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui