On May 21, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: > That's the kind of thing I had in mind, but I was also thinking of > subtyping-like relations in the exception hierarchy. For example, does it > make sense to change a contract to raise a less specific error?
No, absolutely not. The Style Guide recommends to catch the most specific exn-s possible so as not too accidentally mask out others that aren't supposed to be handled. > Does it matter? I follow this guideline, and it isn't mind. (I believe it came from Matthew.) But whoever recommended it (1) is probably doing it too and (2) I found suggestion in other style guides that say similar things. So there is some kind of backwards compatibility problem. How large it is, I don't know. > At any rate, it seems we might need code to be able to catch and handle > different contract violations different ways. Raising only one kind of error > is fine when humans are handling them, but programs like Plot are too stupid > to read error messages. > > From your response, it seems safe for now to insert another level in the > exception hierarchy for math domain errors, so I'll make a bug report about > it and assign it to myself. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
