suppressedException semantics

[David Holmes]

Reinier Zwitserloot said the following on 08/25/10 23:49:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:03 PM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com 
> <mailto:David.Holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     I don't see how the lack of tools is relevant to the question. You
>     will want to follow the chain of exceptions no matter which one is
>     chosen to be thrown.
> 
> Why? Once I see a trace that explains the problem, I stop reading. The 
> faster that happens, the happier I'd be.

Well if you're sure none of the other exceptions indicate real problems 
that need to be addressed, that is your call.

>     It is far from obvious to me that if there are "many tens of stack
>     traces" then there even exists a "primary" one, let alone that that
>     will be the exception being thrown under the current proposal.
> 
> 
> One of them is going to be printed first. Unless you're suggesting we 
> officially state that the order in which exceptions print will 
> henceforth be undetermined, but I don't think that's a good idea.

Of course one of them will be printed first - and then we have issues of 
printing breadth first or depth first with the cause and 
suppressedExceptions.

My point is that it doesn't matter which one is printed first, so why 
not stick with an order that is consistent with the existing language 
semantics?

I don't see cost:benefit in the right proportions here in the general 
case. If we were limited to one resource per try-with those proportions 
improve significantly.

As I've said YMMV.

David