[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM/ XOM / etc. failed?)
- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:04:04 -0400
- Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- In-reply-to: <C1C03AF3-3367-41BD-974B-D3409FB314E9@expway.fr>
- References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@expway.fr> <442D7D27.8090204@metalab.unc.edu> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@expway.fr> <442D95EE.4050709@metalab.unc.edu> <C1C03AF3-3367-41BD-974B-D3409FB314E9@expway.fr>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201)
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Sure, though you don't have the nasty interactions between checked
> exceptions and method signatures. That's just scarily broken.
What are you referring to? I'm aware of no such interaction. You have to
declare that a method may throw a checked exception. This allows clients
to realize that the exception may be thrown for reasons beyond their
control and then to prepare to handle it. What's the problem with that?
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
