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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <32B197A6.2781E494@escmail.orl.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203938185
references: <mazzanti-0512961053010001@131.114.200.115>
 <EACHUS.96Dec10195317@spectre.mitre.org>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-12-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> non-erroneousness.  When is it legal to change the order of operations
> or do some computations at compile time, assuming that the program
> does not raise a predefined exception, even if it changes
> the--user-discoverable--state if an error does occur?  The Ada 95
> rules are much better than in Ada 83, but there are still some corners
> where it is hard for the user to force a guarentee that an error
> (which is the intended effect for that input) will occur.

Hmmm. Can I take this to mean that it is not a good idea to raise
predefined exceptions manually? Are predefined exceptions somehow
handled differently than user-defined ones?

-- 
T.E.D.          
             |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.lmco.com  |
             |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net               |
             |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison          |