"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.


Kristofer