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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.161.40 with SMTP id xp8mr28883772pab.33.1416972591727; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:29:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.20.175 with SMTP id 44mr531210qgj.4.1416972590953; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:29:50 -0800 (PST) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!h15no7771951igd.0!news-out.google.com!w7ni50qay.0!nntp.google.com!w8no2419196qac.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:29:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21ba7adobg61amm6l57jiv0uaonkbv0oqr@4ax.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.111.125.244; posting-account=Ies7ywoAAACcdHZMiIRy0M84lcJvfxwg NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.111.125.244 References: <0d8452a9-68c9-4835-b6f3-17407132ca9f@googlegroups.com> <8194a204-7b15-463d-a2fd-4d3ba342fe97@googlegroups.com> <21ba7adobg61amm6l57jiv0uaonkbv0oqr@4ax.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <32adf3de-3521-4aca-a9e0-ad0b9c070734@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: How to get nice with GNAT? From: brbarkstrom@gmail.com Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:29:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:191035 Date: 2014-11-25T19:29:50-08:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:33:01 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber > declaimed the following: > > > > > >Does leave OUT only parameters hanging, unless one just takes the view that > >IN OUT and OUT both rely upon copying from procedure local memory to return > >parameter memory at the same point (and an IN OUT copies from the parameter > >memory to local memory upon entry). > > > > ADDENDUM: Original Ada OUT parameters were write-only from the > viewpoint of the procedure too... Ada 95 allowed them to be used as > read-write within the procedure. > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN The last several posts look at exception handling from several different philosophical points of view. It might be interesting to try to see what these different points of view suggest with respect to 1) detection of exceptions during the initial debugging phases of development, 2) "routine" handling of exceptions during operations, for example which exceptions should be logged, which should we allow users to correct (bad input), and which are serious enough to make us want to shut down the whole system, 3) leaving clues about assumptions on exception handling that might reduce maintenance costs when a system needs revision in the future. It sounds like there's enough divergence of opinion that collecting these differences and creating some suggestions of practical use to programmers might have some value - Ada Gems or a paper at HILT or Ada-Europe might be interesting. Maybe we could start by collecting material for a history of exception handling, see if we could get some practical and quotable quantitative experience (like how many debugging person-hours could appropriate exception handling save), and suggestions about how to feed this experience into Ada revisions. Bruce B.