On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:54 PM, Richard Jones wrote:

> Yes, all well and good, but I *do not* want have to go and change all
> .mli files to support checked exceptions,

Big change in the language -> big changes in the programs.
Fair enough.

>  and then go and change them
> all again when I decide to put a SQL database behind some persistence
> library deep in the code.

Why would you need to do that ?  Your new implementation of the
persistence library should use a few try...with constructs instead
of changing the interface of the functions in an incompatible way.

> This is the problem with checked exceptions in Java: the set of
> exceptions that can be thrown is an implementation detail which is
> exposed unnecessarily through the API.

IMO it is part of the interface, just like the return type of the
functions.

-- Damien

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners