Because there's use in having the compiler be your pair programmer. It's nice when your compiler tells you: Hey, uh, did you think about FileNotFoundException?
I'm just asking for the ability to say: Yes, I did, thanks for reminding me - without having to jump through bizarre hoops like you have to do today. That's what checked exceptions ought to be: This condition is usually both expectable and handleable, so please remind my API user. On Sep 23, 9:01 pm, Josh Berry <tae...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <reini...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Obviously, when sneakyThrows becomes part of the language, you remove > > the compile-time restriction that you can't catch checked exceptions > > that nothing in the try body throws. We're discussing an idea here, I > > didn't feel the need to submit an entire spec. > > Why invent "sneakyThrows" when you could just drop the checked requirement? -- 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.
