3 ms·
> I'd expand on one of his points and observe that one of the core problems is that they are called exceptions, which prejudices the discourse in advance. They
by RickHull 14y ago
> I'd expand on one of his points and observe that one of the core problems is that they are called exceptions, which prejudices the discourse in advance. They aren't exceptions. They are a way of declaring a handler ...
I can't figure out what you're referring to with they. I am guessing wrapped exceptions, but also maybe the example where nil was passed to the constructor instead of a hash?
- jerf 14y agoExceptions are called exceptions. But they really aren't. They're two concepts conflated together.
- RickHull 14y ago> Exceptions are called exceptions. But they really aren't. They're two concepts conflated together. > They aren't exceptions. They are a way of declaring a handler ... Hm, if that's the case, then you described the handling of exceptions, which is distinct from the declaration of the exceptional case as well as the act of throwing or raising the exception. I feel like your comment unhelpfully adds mystique rather than clarifies. I may be holding you to an "unfair" standard though, based on your comment history, of which I am an enthusiastic fan.
- jerf 14y agoIt's hard to say "exceptions aren't actually exceptions" without essentially being guilty of equivocation in advance. The important part of my message was where I broke it down in two pieces, neither of which I call exceptions in a desperate and apparently failed attempt to avoid further confusion. Sorry. There's the control flow construct, and there's the use of the control flow construct for handling certain types of errors, and the two get bundled together under one word in a way I think is misleading.