Timeline for Is it wrong to prefer exceptions to centralize error handling logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 2018 at 20:05 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 14 characters in body |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 19:55 | vote | accept | void.pointer | ||
| Jun 4, 2018 at 16:18 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Ergo, the "natural idioms" thing I mentioned. I think language idioms are a good way to think of this; if you're not violating the programming language's natural way of doing things, then I think you can safely take a "pro/con" approach. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 15:47 | comment | added | Deduplicator | Well, if we talk Java or C#, you are right, programmer error nearly always should result in exceptions. It's C++ though, so we can easily make it impossible to not supply the required parameter without violating the language (making sure it's sensible is likely too much for the type-system though), in which case all bets are off anyway. Or we would prefer assert() for this type of error most of the time. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 15:37 | history | answered | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 4.0 |