I looked at the Optional
class method orElseThrow
out of curiosity and I got confused of its signature. I didn't understand why it has to be declared as it is. So, I did an experiment with a copy of the original orElseThrow
method and my simplified variant:
public class Main<T> {
//This is original signature of Optional.orElseThrow method
public <X extends Throwable> T orElseThrow(Supplier<? extends X> exceptionSupplier) throws X{
throw exceptionSupplier.get();
}
//This is my attempt to simplify it but it doesn't work without try-catch block
public T orElseThrow2(Supplier<Throwable> exceptionSupplier) throws Throwable{
throw exceptionSupplier.get();
}
public static void main(String[] args){
Main<Object> m = new Main<Object>();
m.orElseThrow(() -> new RuntimeException("ha")); //no warnings/errors shown
m.orElseThrow2(() -> new RuntimeException("sad")); //"Unhandled exception: java.lang.Throwable"
}
Why my method is not accepted without a try-catch
block?
Why extending Throwable
as in the original method doesn't require a
try-catch
block even though original method throws a Throwable
object?
Because all the compiler knows about your method is that is throws a Throwable. Since the Throwable could thus be a checked exception, you're forced to declare it in the throws clause or to catch it.
Because the compiler knows that the method throws X, where the generic type X is inferred as RuntimeException
: () -> new RuntimeException("ha")
is a Supplier<RuntimeException>
. And runtime exceptions, by definition, are unchecked exceptions that don't need to be declared in the throws clause.