Thanks for the info. That would be *great*.
Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > I may have mentioned it before, but due to very complex reasons I > won't go into here, "catching a checked exception that cannot be > thrown" will most likely become a warning and not an error in java 7. > So, Jess, your #1 gripe may be about to be resolved*. > > *) As there isn't an umbrella JSR, let alone some sort of official > list of java 7 changes, this isn't set in stone. It is, however, a > likely requirement in order for a proposal on the coin shortlist > that's been unanimously well accepted to be backwards compatible. We > all know how anal sun gets about backwards compatibility, so for once > you may keep your hopes up. > > On Aug 19, 1:58 pm, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: > >> I see this as an important change quite apart from the current debate. >> >> Catching an exception that cannot be thrown should be a *warning* not an >> error. >> >> I'm sick of having code stop compiling because someone stopped throwing >> a checked exception! That should *not* be a breaking change. There is >> justification for a warning -- something changed that you might want to >> look into and clean up accordingly -- but there's no cause for an error. >> >> This would be my #1 gripe about javac -- bar none. >> // >> >> >> >> Casper Bang wrote: >> >>> I can confirm this is practice, in fact, the modification to >>> Check.java I described a few posts ago would also allow compilation of >>> code with catch clauses of checked exceptions not really being thrown. >>> >>> /Casper >>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
