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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!pattis
From: pattis@cs.washington.edu (Richard Pattis)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Optional Sequence of Statements Before Exception Handlers
Summary: Here is how I do it
Keywords: exception handling
Message-ID: <12427@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 30 Jun 90 17:21:26 GMT
References: <34741@vrdxhq.verdix.com>
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <34741@vrdxhq.verdix.com>, edm@vrdxhq.verdix.com (Ed Matthews) writes:
> I've been thinking about the following situation recently:
> 
>   exception
>     when foo_error =>
>       A;
>       B;
>     when bar_error =>
>       A;
>       B;
>       C;
>     when others =>
>       A;
>       B;
>       D;
>   end;
> 
> and wondering if allowing the following would be a "good thing:"
> 
>   exception
>     A;
>     B;  -- these two statements comprise the optional sequence before handlers
>     when foo_error =>
>       null;
>     when bar_error =>
>       C;
>     when others =>
>       D;
>   end;
> 

How about:


EXCEPTION
  WHEN OTHERS =>
      A;
      B;
      BEGIN
        RAISE;
      EXCEPTION
         WHEN foo_error => NULL;
         WHEN bar_error => C;
         WHEN others    => D;
      END;
      -- Can put post statements here (done for all exceptions)
END;

Rich Pattis

PS: Actually, I've never programmed this, but I have thought about it; if it
won't work, I'm sure some kind soul will tell me so, loudly.