Re: [RFC] Exceptions in the engine

On 25/10/2013 20:41, Joe Watkins wrote:

If we really wanted to, we could fix all the code that throws the base Exception, making them throw specialized types, as they should

This seems a little contradictory when you're proposing an undifferentiated EngineException, where individual errors would need to be distinguished based on the message string. That's pretty much what throw Exception('Some message'); gives in userland. Besides which...

and include a compiler check that finds catch(Exception) blocks and complains, it shouldn't really be valid

I don't think "catch(Exception)" blocks exist as a partner to "throw Exception;" they exist to mark a boundary in code that you don't want any exceptions to cross, or where you want to log all exceptions in some bespoke way. They might be the last in a long string of catch() blocks attached to one try, like the default: label in a switch statement. They might also, as discussed wrt assertions/expectations, be in a unit testing framework. -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]