RFC: startup time - again

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:15 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> I agree with Robert that code which catches errors should be able
> > distinguish between errors according to the class, rather than
> having to
> > use string matching or error numbers or something like that.
> 
> Hang on, both of you cut off my mail just before the point where I
> specifically mentioned errors that may be both shown to the user and
> caught by code... :-)  I agree that calling code should not need to
> parse the string.
> 
> I agree one option is to put errors near the raising code, on the
> grounds that it will very likely be loaded if someone wants to catch
> the error.
> 
> My point is that if a new class is actually unnecessary altogether
> that avoids even thinking about this.

My point, which I suspect I failed to make :), is that we can't really
tell a-priori which exceptions will be shown to the user, and which
won't. The sole exception [har har har] is those exceptions raised by
the CLI layer - because those are never seen by GUI's.

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080910/a907bbd7/attachment.pgp