Browse thread
Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2006-12-10 (19:07) |
From: | brogoff <brogoff@s...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Today's inflamatory opinion: exceptions are bad |
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Jon Harrop wrote: > This has been done. There was a tool called ocamlexc that did whole-program > analysis to find out which exceptions could propagate where. However, it > wasn't useful enough to be kept up to date. I think the fact is that it was never part of the main distribution, and quickly became out of date. That it wasn't or wouldn't have been useful is a conclusion that you've drawn which is arguable. If ocamlexc were part of the distr I'd have it run against all the programs I build. I'd like the extra checking, but, like Richard Jones, I don't want to have that in the source code. In all of my Java I use subclasses of RuntimeException to avoid having to list exceptions. I'm not convinced by the arguments so far, or even that exceptions are only for exceptional situations. Is End_of_file really exceptional? What's the proposed alternative to End_of_file, wrapping results in option? -- Brian