Thanks alot to all! My bad: I completely forgot that “catch (foo)” implies
Exception foo, and not Throwable foo.
OC
On 12. 10. 2016, at 18:59, Jim White <james.paul.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The recommended way to have an exception that can't be caught except in
> specifically intended places is to extend java.lang.Throwable (or if
> appropriate to the use case, java.lang.Error). Those work just like
> Exception except that they don't have to be declared in the method signatures
> where they are throwable from and of course "catch (Exception ex) ..."
> doesn't catch them since they are not subclasses of Exception.
>
> -- Jim
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Dinko Srkoč <dinko.sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 October 2016 at 18:27, Søren Berg Glasius <soe...@glasius.dk> wrote:
> > This question should be asked in us...@groovy.apache.org
> >
> > And the answer to the question must be, no. But you could check if
>
> Well, strictly speaking, that's not quite true ;-)
>
> @groovy.transform.InheritConstructors
> class MySpecialException extends Throwable {}
>
> try {
> try {
> throw new MySpecialException("foo")
> } catch (ex) {
> println "never got here!"
> }
> } catch (MySpecialException ex) {
> println "did catch that $ex"
> }
>
> but I don't think I would recommend that :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Dinko
>
> >
> > } catch (exception) {
> > if(exception instance MySpecialException) throw exception
> > println "bar caught $exception"
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Søren Berg Glasius
> >
> > Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
> > Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
> > --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
> >
> > From: o...@ocs.cz <o...@ocs.cz>
> > Reply: dev@groovy.apache.org <dev@groovy.apache.org>
> > Date: 12. oktober 2016 at 18.24.20
> > To: dev@groovy.apache.org <dev@groovy.apache.org>
> > Subject: non-catchable exception?
> >
> > Hello there,
> >
> > is it possible to create an exception which will *not* be caught by a
> > general handler, only by a specific one? So that e.g., the following code
> >
> > ===
> > class MySpecialException extends Exception { /* whatever magic needed here
> > */ }
> > ...
> > def foo() {
> > throw new MySpecialException()
> > }
> > def bar() {
> > try {
> > foo()
> > } catch (exception) {
> > println "bar caught $exception"
> > }
> > }
> > static main(args) {
> > try {
> > bar()
> > } catch (MySpecialException special) {
> > println "special exception"
> > }
> > }
> > ===
> >
> > would print out "special exception" and *not* "bar caught..."?
> >
> > The reason is that the code I at the moment work with contains _lots_ of
> > generic try/catch harnesses at different levels of code; they generally
> > report the error caught and then go on processing the input. Now I would
> > need a „special” exception which would not be caught by any of them, to
> > abort the processing immediately.
> >
> > Adding a separate "catch (MySpecialException goup) { throw goup }" statement
> > to each of all those already existing harnesses -- which would be, I guess,
> > conceptually the right thing to do -- would be rather at the inconvenient
> > side.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > OC
> >
>
