Front page | perl.perl6.language.errors |
Postings from August 2000
At 02:06 AM 8/24/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >I just don't think that with with respect to the infrastructure >mechanism per se, "fatality" should have anything to do with it. >In the end, that's a judgement call; that's what we get paid the >big bux for ;-) I have reservations about the 'severity' tag for just this reason, although lots of people seem to want it. As long as its domain values are words like 'fatal', there will be argument about what that means. Callee: "I threw a 'fatal' exception... you're not supposed to catch something like that and keep going... how am I supposed to write my code to handle that?" Caller: "If I can catch this thing you think is 'fatal' and I know what to do in that case, it's my business whether or not I keep going; you don't get to decide when my mission-critical program halts, thank you very much." And so forth. Anyone got any severity keywords that could be free of this semantical minefield? Maybe just assign it a number on an open-ended scale? I mean, the interpretation of a standard enumeration is going to vary from user to user, so the caller is going to have to look up the different exceptions that can be thrown by the callee anyway. The callee ought to document which ones result from or result in a condition that does not allow calling any of their interface safely again. But then, there will be calls that mean that parts of the interface can no longer be called, but other parts can, and they'll have to document that too... -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design TechnologiesThread Previous | Thread Next