trying out the prototype (original) (raw)

Joshua Bloch jjb at google.com
Wed Aug 25 11:06:39 PDT 2010

David,

I very much disagree with this one. I see it as a major win that you don't end up with multiple levels of indentation.

     Josh

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:14 AM, David Holmes <David.Holmes at oracle.com>wrote:

Gernot Neppert said the following on 08/24/10 19:27: > 2. If you use multiple Resources, an exception thrown by one of them > will suppress exceptions thrown by the 'close()' invocation of others. > While I can see some sense in suppressing exceptions from 'close()' of > the same instance, I cannot see why this reasoning should apply to > other instances. > (I guess this forms a case against the try-with-multiple-resources > statement in general. The list of semicolon-delimited declarations > enclosed by parentheses looks weird, anyway ;-)

I tend to agree the syntax is awkward and far less readable than simply nesting the try-with statements. David Holmes > Here's an example: > > class ThrowsOnRead extends Reader > { > public int read(char[] cbuf, int off, int len) throws IOException > { > throw new IOException(); > } > > @Override > public void close() throws IOException > { > > } > } > > class ThrowsOnClose extends Reader > { > public void close() throws IOException > { > throw new IOException(); > } > > public int read(char[] cbuf, int off, int len) throws IOException > { > return 0; > } > } > > > > public class TestAutoClose { > > public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { > try(Reader rdr1 = new ThrowsOnRead(); Reader rdr2 = new ThrowsOnClose()) > { > rdr1.read(); // Why is this exception more important than the > one thrown by rdr2.close() ? > } > } > } >

More information about the coin-dev mailing list