"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:jhr0vq$24t0$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 2/19/12 5:22 AM, deadalnix wrote: >> Le 19/02/2012 08:05, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit : >>> How about a system in which you can say whether an exception is I/O >>> related, network related, recoverable or not, should be displayed to the >>> user or not, etc. Such is difficult to represent with inheritance alone. >>> >> >> That may sound great on the paper, but it isn't. The fact that an >> exception is recoverable or not depend often on your program and not on >> the cause of the exception. > > This is self-evident. Again, the meaning of "recoverable" is "operation > may succeed if retried with the same input". It's a hint for the catch > code. Of course the program is free to ignore that aspect, retry a number > of times, log, display user feedback, and so on. But as far as definition > goes the notion is cut and dried. >
WTF? "Recoverable" means "can be recovered from". Period. The term doesn't have a damn thing to do with "how", even in the context of exceptions. It *never* has. If you meant it as "operation may succeed if retried with the same input", then fine, but don't pretend that *your* arbitrary definition is "cut and dried".