Hmm... Suppressed Exceptions are Throwables[]

[Osvaldo Pinali Doederlein]

  My $0.02:  getSupressed().

- It's sufficiently clear (from both the context of the containing class 
and the return static type), so this is terse without being obscure;
- There is a BIG precedent: we already have getCause(), not 
getCauseException() or getCauseThrowable().

A+
Osvaldo

On 30/09/2010 14:12, Mike Clark wrote:
> Re: "cause" instead of "suppressed"
> To me it is fairly obvious that suppressed exceptions are not causes,
> secondary or otherwise.  Thus I would vote against any use of the term
> "cause" in relationship to suppressed exceptions.
>
> Re: "Exception" vs "Throwable":
> The Java exception class hierarchy and naming has always been ever so
> slightly awkward.  In conversation, when I talk about exceptions in a
> _general_ sense, I mean anything that can be thrown.  Thus when I
> speak of Java exceptions in the general sense, I am usually talking
> about Throwable and its subclasses.
>
> This follows with the Java Language Specification where you will find
> the specification of java.lang.Throwable under the prominent chapter
> title "Exceptions."  So, you might say that while java.lang.Exception
> is subordinate to java.lang.Throwable, java.lang.Throwable is itself
> subordinate to the Java language feature "exceptions."  And so it
> could be argued that the "Exceptions" term in
> "getSuppressedExceptions" actually refers to the exceptions language
> feature, not java.lang.Exception.
>
> I am also familiar with (and myself use, where appropriate) the
> convention of keeping a method's name in sync with the type name of
> its return value.  Under this convention, the method would be better
> named "getSuppressedThrowables."
>
> However, I think the current naming ("getSuppressedExceptions") is
> understandable and justifiable under the perspective of "exceptions
> are a language feature" (e.g. JLS.)
>
> So for me, I'm happy either way.
>
> my 2 cents,
>
> Mike
>