New protocol for disabling exception suppression

[Rémi Forax]

[...]

>>
>> Reading the corresponding javadoc,
>> I've found that the constructor is protected. 
>
> That was intentional.

I know. You aren't a student anymore.
But I think this intention is not well grounded.

>
>> In my opinon, it should
>> be public. All the other constructors are public, you can instantiate
>> a Throwable but if you want a Throwable that don't store
>> suppressed exceptions, you have to subclass it.
>> I don't understand the rational of this decision.
>>
>
> Disabling suppression is a niche capability.  It does not need to be 
> made as easy to use as other capabilities of Throwable.  If a need 
> arises to make the new constructor public, that can be done compatibly 
> in a future release.

Why not now ?
Again, why Throwable has to be different from one of it's subclass.

>
> -Joe

Rémi