If it's impossible to recover anyway, you don't catch the error in the first place...?
/ Mirar
Previous text:
2003-10-02 18:18: Subject: Re: throw or return
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:40:02PM +0200, Mirar @ Pike developers forum wrote:
you also catch "out of memory", "out of stack", "no such file or directory", and probably a ton of errors I can't think of right now.
Then I will specify exactly what _types_ of errors I want to catch, so something irrelevent won't be handled.
But typically, if (say) I can't open a file, which is mandatory for application, I don't care _why_ it cannot be opened, I've to stop anyway (with message specifying the reason) - that's why I don't like this idea of implicit rethrowing.
Or similar situation with "division by zero" - it is impossible to recover anyway...
Regards, /Al
/ Brevbäraren