Hello.
To summarize:
(1) Does anyone disagree with having all CM exceptions inherit
from a new "MathRuntimeException" which itself will inherit
from the standard "RuntimeException"?
(2) Does anyone disagree with all exceptions being mandatorily
advertized in the "throws" clause of methods and constructors?
That means that for each exception explicitly instantiated in the
body of the method, the instantiated type must appear in "throws"
clause.
(3) Does anyone disagree that the "throws" clause of a method could
advertize "MathRuntimeException" for any exception not thrown by
itself but by a method which it calls?
That means that it is not mandatory to indicate the specific type
for exceptions not explicitly instantiated in the body the current
method.
I'm not sure about point (3); it seems that it would avoid duplicating
descriptions of lower-level preconditions for CM methods that calls other CM
methods or advertizing something that would be an implementation detail for
the calling method. I didn't check how often that would apply...
At first sight, that would surely avoid that upper levels are tightly
coupled to lower levels: if a method is modified to throw a new exception,
methods that call it do not have to update their documentation and "throws"
clause.
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
