On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 21, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: > >> That's the kind of thing I had in mind, but I was also thinking of >> subtyping-like relations in the exception hierarchy. For example, does it >> make sense to change a contract to raise a less specific error? > > No, absolutely not. The Style Guide recommends to catch the most specific > exn-s possible so as not too accidentally mask out others that aren't > supposed to be handled. >
While I generally agree with Matthias here -- backwards compatibility is important(!), we should be a bit careful because it is possible to have a too-specific exn hierarchy (we had one that had far too many exns before the current one and we removed a bunch of specificity with no ill effects). Robby ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
