On May 22, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > While I generally agree with Matthias here -- backwards compatibility > is important(!), we should be a bit careful because it is possible to > have a too-specific exn hierarchy (we had one that had far too many > exns before the current one and we removed a bunch of specificity with > no ill effects).
Yes we did. And adding layers makes it more specific again. So is the second half an even stronger agreement with my stance :-) ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
