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,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!caip!cbmvax!bpa!burdvax!eric
From: eric@burdvax.UUCP (Eric Marshall)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Exception handling question
Message-ID: <2737@burdvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 09:38:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: burdvax.2737
Posted: Thu Oct  9 09:38:15 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Oct-86 08:56:01 EDT
References: <2729@burdvax.UUCP> <8610072133.AA10009@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: System Development Corp., Paoli, PA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	What is the current interpretation of the posted program?

	One of the compilers I tested it on detected an error on the
'raise;' statement, and gave a reference to LRM paragraph 11.3.3.
Reading this paragraph, it seems to say that the posted program
is illegal, and the compiler is correct. The LRM paragraph says

	the raise statement with no exception name is only allowed in
	an exception handler, but not in the sequence of statements of
	a subprogram, ... enclosed by the handler.

All of these additional constructs can only be introduced by
a block statement. The paragraph never explicitly addresses the
raising of the exception in the statements of the block, therefore
it seems the posted program is indeed illegal.
-- 


Eric Marshall
System Development Corporation, a Burroughs Company
P.O. Box 517
Paoli, PA. 19301
(215) 648-7223

USENET: sdcrdcf!burdvax!eric
        {sjuvax,ihnp4,akgua,cadre}psuvax1!burdvax!eric
ARPANET: PAYTON@BBNG