Feedback and comments on ARM proposal - resend

[Neal Gafter]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Bob Lee <crazybob at crazybob.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>>
>> To address this problem, that is neither a necessary or particularly
>> useful technique.  It is not useful because using this technique to
>> properly report or log these suppressed exceptions would be very
>> difficult using this API.  One would effectively have to add code to
>> most catch clauses in a code base - even the ones generated by this
>> desugaring - because any one of them may have suppressed exceptions
>> attached.
>
> I can't disagree more, mostly because I don't know why you'd have to "add
> code to most of the catch clauses in a code base." It sounds like you're
> complaining about how hard it's going to be to handle this useful new
> information that we don't have access to at all today.

No, I'm complaining about where and how the information is provided.

Moreover, it only addresses a small part of the problem.  Every
try-finally block in which one exception propagates out of the try
block and another from the finally block causes the exception from the
try block to be discarded, whether the try-finally is a result of
attempting to manage a true-resource-with-close, to manage a resource
that doesn't quite match what this proposal supports, or for any other
reason.  Given the narrow applicability of the proposed construct, I
would hope to see at least some attempt to address the underlying
problem.