On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Harrop<jharrop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Tim Snyder<tsnyder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Well, I can see that LazySeq does indeed catch and wrap all Exceptions >> > in a RuntimeException. I also think I can work around it, but I'd >> > like to know why this was done? >> > >> > Was it necessary given the checked vs. unchecked exception system of >> > Java? >> > >> >> Yes. > > What about declaring IFn.invoke() as "throws Exception"?
It is declared that way. > Or did you think > that would make calling Clojure from Java too painful? Everything about checked exceptions is painful. Wrapped exceptions are a fact of checked exceptions, since callers and base classes/interfaces get to decide what problems (as yet unwritten) callees/derivees can have (including none), e.g. Object.toString() dictates no object can have a problem producing a string, but a lazy sequence, whose contents are determined by calls to who-knows-what functions, might have a problem in toString(). It's a bad system, I didn't invent it, sorry. > Or was there some > other reason? There are many other call paths that don't have Exception declared. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
