Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Andrew Johnson <[email protected]> · Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:53 -0600

Benjamin Franksen wrote:

I am not convinced, neither by the argument above ("write a try/catch

phrase that could catch warnings but not errors or fatalities") nor by

the Jeff's design where the severity is a class member.

IMHO, exceptions should not be classified at all into severity types.

I agree with you; as I said in my penultimate sentence:

> I'm also not convinced that the thrower can determine the severity of
> an exception in practice.

I guess I didn't express all of the reasons for rejecting Jeff's

severity() method. My suggestion about being able to catch warnings was

not made because I want to do that, but to show that using the exception

class hierarchy makes more sense than hiding warning/error information

inside the exception object itself.

Instead, I would propose to create /one/ special exception type that

is reserved for 'assert' style failures, i.e. failures that can only

becaused by broken or corrupted code. IIRC, this is what a 'fatal'

severity normally means in Jeff's code.

I think this is very similar to Kay's point, which I will respond to

separately...

- Andrew
--
There is no S in exprexxo.

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System