RE: NYIException

[Jeroen Frijters]

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.

Regards,
Jeroen