Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I could live with that, too - only that I dislike the general > > direction of semantic overloading, instead of keeping things nicely > > separated (if they are orthogonal). Daniel's assertNonNull can be used > > at tons of other places, not only for this very specific use case. > > Depends on the thrown exception - if it's special to this particular > case ... > Having specialized exception types for every single one of those cases makes even less sense to me. Off the top of my hat, I'd only consider a distinction between fatal and non-fatal (for the office process) runtime exceptions to be of any value (if at all). > Besides this: I'm for a balance between convenience and following the > higher ideals :) > Balance is always nice ;-) Anyway, if this is such an overwhelmingly common pattern, the way it's handled is uniform, and you still think UNO_SET_THROW is less to type than assertNonNull, then, as I said, I'm ok with that. > Similar, I don't consider "semantic overloading" a bad thing, if it > effectively saves hundreths of developers millions of characters to > type. That's a good trade, IMO. > See above. ;-) Cheers, -- Thorsten If you're not failing some of the time, you're not trying hard enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
