From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Versus PL/I - The debate continues
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:44:28 GMT
Date: 2003-03-17T22:44:28+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E764F5F.4A025D83@yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: sB5da.105846$b8.13035208@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> > Error recovery in Ada works quite well, thank you.
>
> Robin believes that it is a _good_ thing that PL/I allows the run-time
> ON statement to alter the currently-assigned error recovery, and that
> PL/I allows return to point of error, and will not be convinced that
> both of these were excluded from Ada (and every other language I know of
> with error handling) precisely because experience with PL/I was unfortunate.
>
I disagree vehemently. They were excluded because they were difficult
to implement. Java
(I believe) with its "try/catch" has effectively tried to re-introduce
this. Any other type of error handling is deficient.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-17 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Movca.664$dE2.1469@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
2003-03-16 4:02 ` Ada Versus PL/I - The debate continues Richard Riehle
2003-03-16 21:00 ` John W. Kennedy
2003-03-17 22:44 ` Peter Flass [this message]
2003-03-17 23:02 ` Hyman Rosen
2003-03-18 1:49 ` John W. Kennedy
2003-04-01 2:36 ` Robert I. Eachus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox