Points about language support for 292

[Alex Buckley]

John Rose wrote:
> The design as it stands lets the exceptions flow out of the call site, 
> without attempting to document them there.  It allows the programmer to 
> write catches for the relevant ones, and assumes that the programmer 
> will write all the necessary ones, without help from static exception 
> checking:
> 
> try { InvokeDynamic.<void>foo(bar, baz); }
> } catch (IOException x) { /* programmer-written logic here*/ }
> } catch (AnotherBadException x) { /* more logic here*/ }
> 
> That's status quo for dynamic languages!

I'm really after a mandatory catch(Exception) block for any try block 
that contains InvokeDynamic. An ignored checked exception is THAT 
dangerous. If the programmer catches more specific checked exceptions 
first, that's great. If the programmer wraps Exception in 
RuntimeException always, or some of the time, or never, that's great 
too, but let them document it locally.

Alex