RE: NYIException

[Andrew Haley]

Jeroen Frijters writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Andy Walter writes:
 > >  > a surprising lot of emails have been sent about that 
 > > matter. It seems that we 
 > >  > all agree on that throwing *something* would be better 
 > > than what we have 
 > >  > currently. The attached class is a summary of what as far 
 > > I understood from 
 > >  > the emails most people here wanted.
 > > 
 > > I'm utterly baffled why you think that the attached class is
 > > appropriate.  There was a disagreement as to whether a subclass of
 > > Error or of Exception is required.  Last I heard, the promoters of
 > > Error threw in the towel.  Howver, your class says Exception in the
 > > comments but Error in the code.
 > 
 > I'm certainly not throwing in the towel ;-) I think it should be an
 > error, but I can live with NYIException being an Exception, what I
 > cannot accept is (ab)using UnsupportedOperationException.

Out of interest (and please forgive me if this has already been
discussed at length) why have dummy methods at all?  Wouldn't it be
better to have a compile time failure for unimplemented methods?

Andrew.