Probably then the attribut should be "ignore-on-error" and the value being the QName of the error (or a list of QNames ?), instead of "error-if-fail" Mohamed On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>wrote: > On 24 March 2013 19:37, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex wrote: > > > A use case: I want to make sure that a directory is empty > > before I extract a zip to it (creating the directory if > > necessary). So I’m deleting the directory before extraction, > > and I don’t want to be bothered by an error if the directory > > doesn’t exist. Try/catching this would feel too verbose, > > although I admit that other errors, such as insufficient > > privilieges, could be cought. > > I think that's precisely my point. If you want to ignore a > precise error, because you know that it makes sense in your case > to ignore THAT error, then catch that error. If something else > happens, it will resolve to a proper error as it should do. > > If you ask to ignore the error and get a c:error instead then > you have to use conditional structures, which are even more > verbose... (is it a c:error document?, is it an error document > for an expected error?, etc.) > > But it is true that I usually pay more attention than others to > having proper error detection and handling. So it might just be > me. > > Regards, > > -- > Florent Georges > http://fgeorges.org/ > http://h2oconsulting.be/ > >
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 22:30:32 UTC