4 ms·

> Not really, no? To first approximation all errors are system call failures How does this help predict whether they are handled or not higher up the stack?

• ajross 3y ago
  Again, demanding the need to know what is happening "higher up the stack" to understand an error is a symptom that the error is UNhandled. Handling it means understanding those things, generally by inspecting the return code in the higher caller where the context is understood. And you're absolutely right, if you don't handle errors than a stack trace is a great way to reverse engineer the context. But that's not "handling" the error, it's debugging. And those are different tasks.
  • hamandcheese 3y ago
    So to be clear, are you saying we don't need stack traces because we should handle 100% of errors instead?
    • ajross 3y ago
      I genuinely don't understand how you get from the sentence "You want a stack when you have an unhandled error and need to figure out what went wrong." to "You are saying we don't need stack traces". All I can suggest is that you re-read the thread more carefully.