Re: Exceptions and out procedure arguments (using GNAT GPL)

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:21:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:26 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> 
>>> My gut feeling is that, in
>>> the abstract, a subprogram should either produce a result *or*
>>> (perhaps) raise an exception, but not both; in general, if your
>>> definition of a subprogram is that, under certain conditions, the
>>> subprogram will raise an exception AND the caller can expect a certain
>>> value to be returned (whether in an OUT parameter or an IN OUT or a
>>> global or in something pointed to by an access parameter or whatever)
>>> even though an exception is raised, the design is wrong.  It's better
>>> to use an OUT status code of some sort in that case.
>> 
>> I don't think this is a good advice. In my view a right design assumes that
>> whether an exception is propagated or not, the subprogram should not leave
>> anything in an undefined state.
> 
> Including unititialised in-variables? Partially initialised records?

OK, clearly this applies only to the things the subprogram is responsible
for.

> And can you document all side effects on by reference (or global)
> variables at all, in the presence of exceptions?

That depends on the meaning of "all." Certainly, we cannot control
side-effects on the CPU's cache or on the green gas emission caused by
consuming electricity during subprogram execution...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de