Re: some questions re. Ada/GNAT from a C++/GCC user

[Mike Young <mikey@mcs.com>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> In article <4jp17p$17vn@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
> Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >Jean Ichbiah correctly saw the chaos that could result from approach (b).
> 
> I agree.
> 
> >He chose approach (c) for an exception occuring while the child task was
> >still elaborating the declarative part of its task body and (a) for an
> >exception occuring once the child task entered the sequence of statements
> >of its task body.
> 
> IMHO, he should have chosen approach (c) for all exceptions.  A master
> awaits its dependent tasks before continuing.  This would be the perfect
> place to raise Tasking_Error if the dependent task(s) raise unhandled
> exceptions.  Instead, the dependents silently disappear, like Ms. Rigby,
> and then the parent task continues merrily on its way.

=======
This appears somewhat frightening to me, that I might catch exceptions 
from unknown and unspecified source at any given moment. What exactly 
should I do with this exception aside from terminating? (How is this 
different from SIGCHLD?) This might have the right intuitive feel if 
this behavior applied up until some known point where parent and child 
parts ways, but what point would that be? 

Mike.