From cb9b907839aa0c72ffa41f8a13bfab5cb1341258 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Reinier Zwitserloot Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:29:15 +0100 Subject: In delombok, we mark the AST as changed if we remove an annotation; this fixes the issue where delombok would leave lombok annotations in the file if that annotation had no actual effect (such as @Getter on a field if there is an explicit getX method for that field). issue #443: delombok would screw up @SneakyThrows on methods or constructors with empty bodies. Now we generate warnings for this. --- website/features/SneakyThrows.html | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'website') diff --git a/website/features/SneakyThrows.html b/website/features/SneakyThrows.html index 0f04b7d9..808a7879 100644 --- a/website/features/SneakyThrows.html +++ b/website/features/SneakyThrows.html @@ -64,7 +64,11 @@ statement in a try/catch block with just e.printStackTrace() in the catch block. This is so spectacularly non-productive compared to just sneakily throwing the exception onwards, that Roel and Reinier feel more than justified in claiming that the checked exception system is far from perfect, and thus an opt-out mechanism is warranted. -

+

+ If you put @SneakyThrows on a constructor, any call to a sibling or super constructor is excluded from the @SneakyThrows treatment. This is a + java restriction we cannot work around: Calls to sibling/super constructors MUST be the first statement in the constructor; they cannot be placed inside try/catch blocks. +

+ @SneakyThrows on an empty method, or a constructor that is empty or only has a call to a sibling / super constructor results in no try/catch block and a warning.

-- cgit