How should the check be done?
...
catch(SomeException se, OtherException oe) {
if (se != null) {
handleException();
}else if (oe != null) {
....
}
}
not sure if that helps...
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.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
