IDL language

[Matthew Johnson]

On Mon May 11 15:32, Mark Doffman wrote:
> >  - Not sure I like "throws" - most languages don't have checked
> >    exceptions, then again, it's actually useful to know what errors
> >    a method may throw (in addition to standard network/IPC exceptions).
> >    I don't know.
> 
> Ummed and ahhed over this too. Declaring the errors was in Telepathy
> XML, which is why its included here. As Error-Name is in the message
> header there is never any difficulty deciding how to de-marshal the
> message. So ATM I'm inclined to agree with you that 'throws' should be
> removed. On the other hand it makes for good documentation.

I'm strongly in favour of it being _somewhere_ in whatever is used to
produce documentation. It's a hint to the programmer that "you might
want to catch() this" rather than a hint to the compiler.

Havoc's point that there will always be unchecked exceptions which could
be thrown notwithstanding, some languages might want to make them
checked exceptions, so we shouldn't lose the information.

Matt

-- 
www.matthew.ath.cx
D-Bus Java
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20090511/8615b386/attachment.pgp