From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a1e7fdaa71a6ffb5f7aa1442f2ddf98f@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] (Re:) Exception handling
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
In-Reply-To: <50a8ececdf41a30e2c23b8b35de4ba04@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:38:56 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a9df4990-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

My experience with error handling has been very much like Sape said
in his post. I get cleaner code with my `port' of the kernel expection
handling than I get with

	if ( ! dothis() ){
		handle the failure
	}
	if ( ! dothat() ){
		handle the failure
	}

Although code can get obscured if exceptions are used badly, the same
happens with traditional error checking.

In the end, I think it's the programmer what counts, and not the
particular error handling mechanism. I've seen both good and nasty
code with and without exceptions (regarding err handling).