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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4b13594b8779b99
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Alan E & Carmel J Brain <aebrain@dynamite.com.au>
Subject: Re: Improving Ada Exceptions
Date: 1997/10/27
Message-ID: <3455718C.35FB@dynamite.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 285256317
References: <63072n$q6r$1@berlin.infomatch.com>
 <873elnu41d.fsf@mihalis.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>
Organization: @home
Reply-To: aebrain@dynamite.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Chris Morgan wrote:
> 
> I think the use of exception objects in C++ is yet another piece of
> overly complex c++ garbage. Although all kinds of wild and wonderful
> schemes can be proposed with their use, in fact most sensible
> exception handling strategies don't need any more facilities than Ada
> offers (in fact Ada83 exceptions seem good enough), in my experience
> (your mileage may vary).

The only practical problems I've seen with Ada-83 exceptions is handling
them when you have arrays of tasks. The exception handler cannot know a
priori which of the tasks raised the exception, and so needs attention.
Yes, the task itself could handle the exception by setting a flag in a
boolean array of the same size, saying "look at me", but that's a bit of
a kludge!
-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au  o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  
                    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale