On 2012-02-21 03:34, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/20/12 6:51 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/20/12 5:46 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
You've suggested adding "Variant[string] info" to Exception for the
sake of i18n. I think that's what he's referring to. You *could*
argue that's not technically i18n, but so far i18n seems to be the
only real use-case for it (although even that much has been disputed
in light of reflection).
All formatting and rendering of the exception information is helped.
And I think that's great because that's the most common activity one
would do with exceptions.
[...]
Then, obviously, different development environments are leading to
vastly different conclusions, because I can't for the life of me imagine
that the most common activity you would do with an exception is to print
it.
Different strokes for different folks I'd say. I think I could claim a
little authority on diversity. I've worked on an extremely diverse range
of applications; in fact I've made a point to acquire broad specialization.
In virtually all systems I've worked on, rendering meaningful error
messages out of exception information has been a major concern, and in
most of them the problem has been poorly addressed. It is very exciting
to have an opportunity to improve on the state of affairs.
Andrei
I think the correct way of handling this is provide enough information
in the exception so a message can be built where the exception is
caught. It might happen the you want to catch the same exception in
different parts of the code and build different messages.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
