Feedback and comments on ARM proposal - resend

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Howard,

the IOException that spins off of file writes is obviously a clear cut  
case of appropriate use of a checked exception. The point is simply  
that 'close' on an *OUTPUTSTREAM* makes a lot of sense. Lots of  
outputstreams use buffering, and in theory your .close() call is the  
first one that will make anything filter from java through to the OS,  
and would thus  be the first time you get an IOException. In other  
words, a close() call on an OutputStream can result in write() calls  
on an underlying non-buffered outputstream, which implies that  
removing IOException off of an OutputStream's close() method makes  
absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you also remove it from  
OutputStream's write() methods. If you're willing to do that, either  
you're arguing in favour of removing checked exceptions altogether, or  
otherwise you ought to be arguing that IOException should be re-homed  
to RuntimeException. Neither of which is on the table for coin.

Because ARM should obviously handle OutputStream, it is therefore  
impossible, within the scope of project coin, to sensibly make ARM  
Closables not throw anything on close() methods.

The general feeling that close() throwing IOExceptions is just plain  
stupid comes from *INPUTSTREAM*, where your inputstream reading has  
not thrown any exceptions, and has therefore, by neccessity, read all  
files and hit the EOF (or whatever other 'I don't need more data'  
marker you're using) without error. In practice, InputStream.close()  
throws an IOException about as often as new String(someBytes,  
"UTF-8"); throws an  UnsupportedEncodingException (i.e.: you'll win  
the lottery first, and get hit by lightning a few times, before  
that'll ever happen). Therefore, removing IOException from InputStream  
(and Reader)'s close() methods makes sense, but wouldn't be backwards  
compatible, so isn't on the table for coin.

  --Reinier Zwitserloot



On Mar 18, 2009, at 05:50, Howard Lovatt wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> 2009/3/15 Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Agreed, though there is one context in which it is possible to jump
>> into the scope of a local variable declaration without "executing"  
>> the
>> declaration: the switch statement.
>
> I thought this was only in C/C++ and Java had plugged this hole - I
> guess I am wrong - do you have an example.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Howard.
>