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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,790d824907970cc3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Glen Subject: Re: Exception Propagation Date: 1999/06/08 Message-ID: <375CC549.7EDFB885@spam.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 486978149 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7jh857$ej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: spameater Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: spamwithchipsplease@spam.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com wrote: > In article , > cdecker@snet.net (Decker, Christian R) wrote: > > I have some Ada code that is apparently raising an exception, but the > > program just seems to hang and does not > > report the exception as i have seen before. It looks like the code > just > > hangs, but when i put an exception handler > > around the suspect code the handler gets executed. > > That's the behavior I'd expect to see if the exception is occuring in a > task. The whole program doesn't terminate just because one task dies. This feature has escaped me, or I have forgot ( RM95 11.4(4) ), I've also checked RM83 and found it to be a feature of that language edition. I would rather the exception was propogated aleast this gives the option of deciding whether the program terminates or not. Given the RM specification, I think a mandatory "when others" task level exception handler would be prudent.