| Subject: | Clarify the "just silence errors" example |
We've had a large debate at work about using Try::Tiny. We had some code like this:
eval { some_code() };
For Java devs, it used to be moderately common to have empty catch blocks while developing
to ignore checked exceptions, but this was laziness was bad and led to many errors. At the
very least, a *desired* empty check block should have been commented.
In our code, the exception was not checked and this is sadly common for eval (at least, I've
noticed it being a common anti-pattern in many companies I have worked for) and I argued
that competent devs would see a try {} without a catch {} and, unlike the eval, automatically
wonder that something was up.
Unfortunately, the first counter-argument was "but the Try::Tiny docs have an unchecked
exception in the SYNOPSIS".
I would suggest updating the docs to make it clear that a try without a catch is strongly
discouraged and, if needed, should at least be documented carefully.
Cheers,
Ovid