On 6/8/22 00:02, Ovid wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:56 PM Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com > <mailto:felipe@felipegasper.com>> wrote: > > Changing the wording of the error message as it stands risks > breaking preexisting applications. So it seems imprudent to do it > without a feature/pragma. > > > This is true. It also kills me every time I see that. One of the (many) > beautiful things of throwing exceptions is being able to test the class > of the object. If people do that, changing the wording of the error > message isn't that big of a deal (and makes it safe to localize, provide > additional information about the error, etc.) > > I really wish warnings were the same: objects that stringify > intelligently. If your application or tests trap it, they use the class > to figure out the type of warning it is and the actual text is for the > poor humans writing the code. Relying in arbitrary text is fragile code. > /Providing/ arbitrary text and nothing else is proving fragile code. I > wish we didn't do that. > > So many of these "we can't change the text" discussions would simply go > away. > > /end rant +1Thread Previous | Thread Next