"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote: > "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.
I guess "transient" is more descriptive. Andrei