Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

[Thomas Zander]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 21 October 2003 23:43, Tom Lord wrote:
>     zander:
>     > A more mature; "I understand, but [Java-esque exceptions are]
>     > not for me" would not leave such a foul taste in my mouth.
>
> (See the postscript below my signature, but:)
>
> Whether or not it is "for me" is not the issue.  The issue is
> objective and can be restated as follows:
>
> In systems based on Java-style exception handling the addition of a
> new exception type to those that can be generated by a given method
> can silently turn some callers of that method from correct to
> incorrect (and even dangerous).

In practice this never happens; take a look at how often a public API 
changes; this is a problem in the same scope.

> The discipline required of a general-purpose library author to use
> Java exceptions safely is, therefore, essentially the very same
> discipline required to use error-codes safely: check for every error
> you know about and handle the case when you got a "surprise" error, at
> _every_call_.

I understand your reasoning but I reject it due to the fact that my classes 
will not compile when the change you think will break things has occurred, 
which in practice makes the issue a non-issue you really don't want to 
guard for.
In other words; I won't use an API if it suddenly decides to add an 
exception, just as much as I would not use an API when it suddenly changes 
its API in any other incompatible manner.

[part removed that uses rejected point to prove more is breaking]


> p.s. If, on the other hand, you're really here to wave your arms
>   around and say "Tom's a Jerk" and leave in a huff (or an minute and a
>   huff), well, you're joining a fine tradition and a long line so you'll
>   have to do it in a pretty pithy way if you want to stand out :-)

Working to get a better product does not involve running away for problems.

>   You wrote:
>     > A more mature; "I understand, but [Java-esque exceptions are]
>     > not for me" would not leave such a foul taste in my mouth.
>
>   Well, please have the good taste to recognize that, especially
>   across the internet, not least across language and cultural
>   barriers, that that "foul taste" may very well be nothing more than
>   an emergent property of the communications process reflecting poorly
>   on neither party, and best responded to by a tasteful grace rather
>   than a tedious defamation.

The usage of the internet across these boundaries will inevitably produce 
friction of some kind; expressing such perceived problems as a suggestion 
to the other party, without any name calling or other dehumanizing 
properties seemed like a good way to work towards a better understanding.
I'm afraid that my grace will never reach the levels you request; please 
bear with me while we both learn to work together with the world at large.

Cheers!

- -- 
Thomas Zander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/lkjKCojCW6H2z/QRAjzcAKDC0wHvi5nYssSd7AJKjQKVdFsx/ACgs8yW
UHgdoTOLpygp6B7bZ0BaRQ4=
=ORiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----