"Vladimir" <truediogen / my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4837660.0112200217.2211c141 / posting.google.com...
> Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries / REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message
news:<99930536532CE726.7EDA0292730FE38B.4D2F742E02C9E2A3 / lp.airnews.net>...
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:29:18 -0800, "John Roth"
> > <johnroth / ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > It'd be a good target. I would be afraid that in languages like Java
> > where you have a lot of required exception handling, it would be
> > difficult to get coverage in certain areas. I could be wrong, though.
>
> If it can be achieved it should be tested.
> If it can't be achieved it should be deleted [from code, library,
> package or something else].
>
In his previous post, Ron was referring to required workarounds (caused by
the
strong typing of exceptions in this case) that *have* to
be inserted to satisfy the compiler but also "can't be achieved".