Re: catch replacing useful errorInfo


Donald G Porter <d...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's look at the corrected example again: ...

tom.rmadilo wrote:
I can't see how this differs from what I said...

OK, violent agreement then. :)

....

Maybe it is easier to say it this way: if you catch an error, throw an
error. Maybe not 100% applicable, but all the examples on this thread
do exactly that. If you don't want to throw an error, figure out how
to avoid the need to catch one.

I can agree on all that as good general advice.

DGP
.