From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ee1a8b8db84c88f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada exception block does NOT work?
Date: 18 Aug 2005 11:07:41 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1124388461.739578.189030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <dds99e$qgn$1@netnews.hinet.net>
   <4301ab29$0$6989$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
   <ddsbsh$8hf$1@netnews.hinet.net>
   <WywMe.7909$RS.138@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <dduoji$g6k$2@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <O9RMe.6732$Wi6.1435@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <de1hpr$4s$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <%s2Ne.2$5F1.1@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
   <1124383129.977718.320820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.194.156.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124388467 23783 127.0.0.1 (18 Aug 2005 18:07:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:07:47 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1124383129.977718.320820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.194.156.4;
   posting-account=SqOfxAwAAAAkL81YAPGH1JdBwpUXw9ZG
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4168
Date: 2005-08-18T11:07:41-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Yes, that's a much better argument. It puts the cause squarely on
> other aspects of Ada's design rather than harrumphing and handwaving.
> By the way, it's not correct to say that Ada allows nested scopes and
> C-like languages do not. The problem here is that in Ada types are
> dynamic while in C-like languages all types are static regardless of
> the scope in which they are defined. So in those languages, there is
> no concept of an object being able to outlive its type, and thus no
> problem with throwing it out of the scope in which the type was defined.

Please describe how you believe that Ada types are dynamic. I am not
clear
that I understand your use of the term.

Jim Rogers