home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: hoho.quake.net!usenet
- From: billf@jovial.com (Bill Foote)
- Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.java,comp.lang.sather
- Subject: Re: What Should An Exception Handling Do? -- Clarification of rules
- Date: 4 Apr 1996 04:16:56 GMT
- Organization: Jovial
- Message-ID: <4jvifo$h9c@hoho.quake.net>
- References: <4irn11$7ln@mimas.brunel.ac.uk> <4jdv0p$lnr@dscomsa.desy.de> <wpp.828370477@marie.physik.TU-Berlin.DE> <3161961F.1FEE8722@ids2.idsonline.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: l89.ip.quake.net
-
- In article <3161961F.1FEE8722@ids2.idsonline.com>,
- Eric Vought <adfh@ids2.idsonline.com> wrote:
-
- > (in the context of registering a callback to deal with the inability
- > to acquire a resource, instead of throwing a resumable exception,
- > much like set_new_handler in C++)
- >
- >Personally, I dislike the fact that Java does not allow method
- >references, as they would be ideal in this situation. How hard would it
- >be for them to implement references to static methods?
-
- Without method references, there's always the command pattern.
-
- Making small, single-purpose classes like this really isn't that painful
- in a language like Java (or Smalltalk, Eiffel, ...). I find that what
- makes it painful in C++ is all the #include/Makefile nonsense I have to
- go through, but this isn't really the fault of the language: it
- could be fixed with the proper tools (i.e. a good IDE).
- --
- Bill Foote | L'homme est nΘ pour vivre dans les
- billf@jovial.com | convulsions de l'inquiΘtude ou dans la
- http://www.jovial.com/~billf/ | lΘthargie de l'ennui -- Voltaire
-
-