"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:jhr81v$2i3r$3...@digitalmars.com... > On 2/19/12 9:56 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message >> news:jhr0vq$24t0$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> >>> 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". > > I think it's a reasonable definition of "can be recovered from" in the > context of exceptions. >
Reasonable maybe, but not obvious. That's all I'm trying to say.