[Web-SIG] New spec: throw_errors
ianb at colorstudy.com
Tue Nov 14 18:10:44 CET 2006
Luke Arno wrote:
> -1 to the proposed spec
> On 11/13/06, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
>> Other Possibilities
>> * You can just get the unwrapped application object and test it.
> +1, emphatically
> Let's encourage best practices, before we
> standardize specific workarounds.
> The unwrapped version of the object should also be
> made available for composition purposes, if it is
> intended for such.
OK, then, you're going to have to justify that, because I don't think
it's best practice ;)
In particular, in many frameworks the presence of an exception catcher
is automatic and largely opaque to the user. Of course it doesn't
*have* to be opaque, but because this is the only case where it really
matters I don't see why it shouldn't be opaque -- it's not worth explaining.
It's not opaque to me, of course, and yet I never feel a need to unpack
the object this way, because the one reason I might have is satisfied
transparently, automatically, and reliably by this environment convention.
Exception handling is something that is generally handled by some
particular pieces of software -- the exception catcher and test
frameworks. If they can agree on this, I don't see a reason anyone else
needs to think about it.
Ian Bicking | ianb at colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Web-SIG