On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Andrew Walrond wrote:

> On Tuesday 29 Jun 2004 17:18, Lennon Day-Reynolds wrote:
>> I think that throwing an exception is a much more appropriate and
>> idiomatic way to handle errors than just silently failing. If it's
>> going to break a lot of your code, though, why not use something like
>
> I agree. It would have been better to throw exceptions, and I can easily
> change my code to handle either case, as you suggest.
>
> But...
>
> I guess I was a bit suprised that this fundamental behaviour was changed; It
> obviously breaks backwards compatibility with previous versions; It broke at
> least one of my apps and I'll have to audit the rest. Many existing apps
> _will_be_broken_ by this change.
>
> Hence my question: Assuming the change is intentional, when will it appear in
> a release (this cropped up with somebody using a nightly snapshot)
>
> Andrew Walrond

see my RCR/BUG? thread - i think it's even worse than you are already pointing
out...

-a
--
===============================================================================
| EMAIL   :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| PHONE   :: 303.497.6469
| A flower falls, even though we love it;
| and a weed grows, even though we do not love it. 
|   --Dogen
===============================================================================