Re: Comparison of Ada and C++ exceptions?

[agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!d arwin.sura.net!seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Feldman)]

In article <2790je$4en@nic.lth.se> dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:
>In <comp.lang.ada> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> writes:
>>Recently I had reason to look at C++'s exception handling. I noticed that
>>each
>>exception can have associated with it some data (user defined), such as a
>>string, a pointer - in fact any object the programmer wants. 
>
>The C++ exception is an object, and I have often wanted to pass along
>some information that describes the problem.  Cf. the UNIX "exception"
>type that is used for problems detected in math routines.
>
>The exception-is-an-object idea also has the benefit that you can
>group exceptions by inheritance.  If you have
>
>	class MATHERROR ....
>	class OVERFLOW : public MATHERROR ....
>	class ZERODIVIDE : public MATHERROR ....
>	class DOMAINERROR : public MATHERROR ....
>
>You can either decide to catch overflows separately, or any math
>error, or a combination thereof:
>
>	catch (OVERFLOW) ....
>	catch (MATHERROR) ....	-- other math errors
>
>This is quite nice.

I agree. One of these days I will study C++ propagation/handling semantics
and see how it compares to Ada. But treating exceptions as real objects
is a good idea.

Mike Feldman