Re^7: why did i die?

When you maintain larger applications, you often route messages based on the seriousness (level) of the message. For instance, you make panics and alerts very visible, and ignore warnings.

I don't disagree with that, but the categorisation should be done but the author of the code that can generate the exceptions; not after-the-fact by a third party logging package that has no knowledge of the code.

That's like giving the telephonist responsibility for deciding who gets an emergency response, based upon the their interpretation of the description provided by a 5 y/o child. "Mommy's asleep and won't wake up!"

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^7: why did i die?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^8: why did i die?
by markov (Scribe) on Apr 02, 2014 at 12:55 UTC

Totally true. However... it is not in the design of our beautiful language. There is even no guideline about what is preferred. So, the only way left is to do the best you can... and I can do a little better I hope. At least, I hope to be able to separate the three causes for filling $@.

It's not that I am not aware how bad the situation is, just that I try to make the best of it. And yes, the telephonist will decide urgency based on the 5yr old's description.

[reply]


Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
	PerlMonks