On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 09:51, Alonso Del Arte
wrote:
> > Although I do it often enough, I'm not a fan of wrapping a checked
> exception in a RuntimeException or even another checked exception like
> IOException.
>
> I'm not either. Nor do I like how AssertionError has a constructor that
> takes a
> Although I do it often enough, I'm not a fan of wrapping a checked
exception in a RuntimeException or even another checked exception like
IOException.
I'm not either. Nor do I like how AssertionError has a constructor that
takes an Object rather than specifically a Throwable. But usually (thoug
Perhaps these type of exceptions can be called "managed" exceptions. Two
syllables instead of the monosyllabic "checked" might draw interest to the
possibility that a slightly more complicated mechanism can make things
easier for the developer. I don't know.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Owen Thom
On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 18:24, Emilian Bold wrote:
> I don't understand your proposal. You are trying to explain it in an
> almost formal way but I don't know what it means...
>
Thank you for trying Emilian. Sometimes I find it hard to speak directly.
Hopefully you'll find some sense in what I'm
I don't understand your proposal. You are trying to explain it in an almost
formal way but I don't know what it means...
For eg. not sure what "ignored" means. Does it behave like a Runtime
Exception? Or is it just not thrown?
Same with the other 2 options.
I think you could do a byte code proce
