Reasonable people can certainly dislike checked exceptions, but if you're
against them, then you should at least demand that your goddamned runtime
system tell you where exceptions are coming from. Is Markus Mottl's patch
making OCaml 3.10? Bueller? Bueller?

On 12/10/06, Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:35:56PM -0500, Chris King wrote:
> > One thing Java (sort of) gets right is keeping track of which
> > exceptions a function can throw, making it easy to ensure that some
> > deeply nested piece of code won't cause the entire application to die
> > from some obscure exception.  I'd love to see a similar feature in
> > O'Caml, whereby the exceptions which a function can raise are part of
> > its type and are inferred and checked by the compiler.
>
> Oh please no!  Checked exceptions are the dumbest and most frustrating
> feature of Java (and that's saying something - the Java language has
> far more frustrations than most programming languages).
>
> Rich.
>
> --
> Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd.
> Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com
> Internet Marketing and AdWords courses - http://merjis.com/courses - NEW!
> Merjis blog - http://blog.merjis.com - NEW!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>