stack-bound vs. travelling closures proposal.

[Peter Levart]

On 06/17/10, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Is there any merit to borrowing the idiom of
> InvocationTargetException? Clients usually discard that exception and
> take the wrapped exception and bubble that up. I wonder if all closure
> exceptions could be wrapped by a unchecked runtime exception, and
> leave it to the caller to do the unwrapping.

I don't understand how that would solve the concerns that Doug Lea raised below...

Peter

> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at marand.si> wrote:
> > On 06/17/10, Doug Lea wrote:
> >> On 06/17/10 08:19, Neal Gafter wrote:
> >> > You're observing that people don't use checked exceptions much today,
> >> > and they aren't well supported (e.g. in concurrency scenarios).
> >>
> >> That was one of the observations. The short version of the
> >> second one is that
> >>    * We don't know how to efficiently process closures performing
> >>      blocking or failing IO.
> >>    * We don't have a reasonable way to ban only IO (or force
> >>      explicit evasion of the ban) without banning all checked exceptions.
> >>
> >> -Doug
> >>
>