"Barry Kelly" <✉eircom.net> wrote in message news:✉4ax.com...
> > > Specification of anticipated exceptions is a misguided dead-end. > <snip> > It's a personal opinion, and I feel it very strongly. It goes against my > religion of "expect exceptions everywhere", because it implies that you > only have to expect some exceptions somewhere
The whole concept of a try - except - end statement, as promoted in the OP language guide, is implicitly justified and/or promoted by "expecting some/certain exceptions somewhere". Why else the "on E:<exceptionclass>" handling sub-statements. Why else a 'try' part at all, not just implicit coverage by the next downstream "except-end" block. I think our biggest problem here is that everybody has their own pet idea on how to use exceptions. This is by far not such a problem for other OP language features.