Points about language support for 292

[Joe Darcy]

On 05/01/09 12:38 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

Yes, for better or worse the Java source language includes checked 
exceptions and InvokeDynamic call sites should not be exempt from 
participating in that rule.

(The existing holes/bugs in this area, like Constructor.newInstance 
should not be expanded.)

-Joe