Reinier,
Without rewrapping you would get into situations where:
* you call foo() and foo() calls bar().
* bar() throws IOException
* foo() doesn't, via some syntax like foo() spits IOException, foo() rethrow
IOException, etc.
Now at your current point you decide that you know better than foo(), and
want to catch and handle the IOException. You can't, it's a compile time
error to catch a checked exception that the compiler believes cannot be
thrown.
Rethrowing might be a better option, and does not need to add stack frames.
You can override Throwable.fillStackTrace to do nothing.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The majority of java programmers have standard rules that ALL blocks
> must be braced.
>
> The *vast* majority of java programmers have standard rules that ANY
> non-trivial block must be braced, and will only keep unbraced the
> simplest of ifs (without elses), whiles, and fors.
>
> That would mean a very very tiny fraction is even going to try and
> write try statement catch (exception(s) e) { ... }.
>
> Is this going to lead to shorter code? After your try version, you'd
> have to do a check on whether se or oe isn't null, which is just as
> much complication in the end, except now you've introduced even more
> opportunity for the programmer to screw up their exception handling,
> and you've introduced 2 very different ways of accomplishing the same
> thing, always a bad idea if it can be avoided.
>
> As I've been proposing with an official coin-dev submission for rather
> a long time now: The right way out of this dilemma is to offer
> programmers the option to explicitly state that they want to ignore an
> exception. This means it gets bubbled up as usual but they don't have
> to declare it as part of their "throws" signature. Something like
> Ricky's "throws private" but with different syntax and without
> rewrapping. Because java really doesn't need stack traces that grow
> even longer.
>
> On Sep 23, 3:12 am, Josh McDonald <j...@joshmcdonald.info> wrote:
> > Hey guys, I'm not weighing in on checked v unchecked, just a syntax sugar
> > idea!
> >
> > We've got two ifs:
> >
> > if (foo)
> > bar();
> >
> > and
> >
> > if (foo) {
> > bar();
> >
> > }
> >
> > So why not introduce a cut-down syntax for common exceptions? Something
> like
> > this:
> >
> > try file=File.open(...) catch(SomeException se, OtherException oe);
> >
> > Which would be expanded out by the compiler to this:
> >
> > SomeException se = null;
> > OtherException oe = null;
> >
> > try {
> > file = File.open(...);
> >
> > } catch (SomeException e) {
> > se = e;
> > } catch (OtherException e) {
> > oe = e;
> > }
> >
> > And you can check the contents of the exception or not at your leisure.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
> >
> > Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > - j...@joshmcdonald.info
> > - http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
> > - http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@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.
