Campbell Ritchie wrote:
chris webster wrote:He also forgot to include a requirement to include any exceptions in the function declaration...
Is that Exceptions thrown or Exceptions not thrown? I thought his language only had one exception so it wouldn't be exceptions.
It only has one exception in 1.0, but we want to be able to add more in 2.0, surely? And even with just one exception, we still need to know if a method might throw it. We don't want to descend into anarchy, after all!
Although I'm coming round to your idea of declaring only the exceptions we
don't throw. That has a warped kind of parsimony about it...