RE: NYIException

[Andrew Haley]

Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > [I'm resending this, apologies if you get it twice]
 > 
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > My only argument was against subclassing Error, because the Java
 > > specification strongly implies that the only reasonable thing to
 > > do when receiving an Error is issue a disgnostic and die.
 > 
 > I apologize for the confusion. 
 > 
 > > In the case of
 > > unimplemented Classpath methods, this seems rather extreme.
 > 
 > Why? I don't see how you can reasonably continue given that an
 > arbitrary functionality that the application depends on is missing.

Think about the "programming by contract" metaphor: the application is
a customer, and the implementation is a contractor.  It is not up to a
contractor to decide whether failure to do a particular job should
cause the whole project to be cancelled.  That decision rests soley
with the customer.  That is because the contractor does not know how
important a particular job is.

An application can decide to carry on, and is perfectly entitled to do
so.

Andrew.