Re: NullPointerException
Peter Duniho wrote:
Have you in fact helped the querent? After all, you stated that a
NullPointerException always terminates the program. Even ignoring that
Nope, I said uncaught exceptions terminate the program. Very different.
you've arbitrarily chosen a different definition of "crash" than Roedy
chose, however more likely that definition might be to be correct it
still remains that your conclusion wasn't precisely correct.
In what way? Name one example where an uncaught exception does not crash the
program.
That is, I will (pedantically) point out that you claimed that
"[exceptions] that YOU catch and deal with properly will not [cause
termination of a program]". Clearly implying that exceptions YOU do NOT
catch and deal with property WILL cause termination of the program.
You added that implication. I never stated it. Also, it is clear that if YOU
use a library that catches an exception, then YOU are responsible that it got
caught, so, pedantically speaking, YOU are still the one catching it by dint
of relying on the library's behavior. So even if the implication you claim is
so clear, it's still correct.
Except that there are examples of areas of the Java API where exceptions
are caught on your behalf, not by YOU.
To be pedantic, I said, "The answer is that uncaught exceptions will cause
termination of a program. Ones you catch and deal with properly will not. "
I did not say, "Exceptions that YOU catch", as you misquoted. I completely
did not talk about the corner case where someone else catches the exception.
(Emphasis added above for clarity)
It's not adding clarity if you change the meaning of what I said by adding
words that weren't even there, then emphasizing them.
Okay, you may now feel free to complain about my pedantry. :)
Complain about it? I thrive on it!
--
Lew