You might want to read what Bruce Eckel has to say about checked exceptions. The short version: checked exceptions sound better than they actually are.
In my experience, having a robust test suite is a great way to go. If a programmer misses something, write a test to verify the bug by watching the test fail, fix the bug, rerun the test and make sure it passes. Gradually over time, you can build a nice test suite which is going to cover the problems you face.
With checked exceptions, a programmer who's under the gun might stub out some exception handling code and then later forget to flesh it out. It's a natural problem, but checked exceptions can lull you into the false belief that you're really handling those issues.
For other readers unclear on this: think of a checked exception as something that can fail forcing you to wrap it in an eval at compile time and then testing the result:
eval {$some->method}; if ($@) {};
If you were forced to do that at compile time, you might see a lot of stubbed out error checking like I demonstrated. In Java, it's something like this:
try { some.method(); } catch (DealWithThisExceptionLater e) {}
Personally, I'd feel much more comfortable with a nice test suite that I can build on rather than littering the actual code with stuff that I might never need.
Cheers,
Ovid
New address of my CGI Course.
In reply to Re: Enforcing exception catching
by Ovid
in thread Enforcing exception catching
by dmitri
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |