Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- From: Elliotte Harold <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:04:04 -0400
- Cc: XML Developers List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <C1C03AF3-3367-41BD-974B-D3409FB314E9@expway.fr>
- References: <email@example.com> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@expway.fr> <442D7D27.firstname.lastname@example.org> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@expway.fr> <442D95EE.email@example.com> <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 firstname.lastname@example.org
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!