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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a4156f047b063f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.134.4.91.MISMATCH!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Forcing Exception Handling
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <02901b13-da72-48ae-9cb3-bf1a10144c44@u3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <87y64zucco.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <ikhql1$807$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3es12u7g6ppm.4lk5iya2a586.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Mar 2011 09:34:44 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4df54f03.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=KZSDH6RY57185[]]\]T081McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;7[>OW4edIN;[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4\`mfM[68DC3R@MHlUfiBT7
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18638
Date: 2011-03-01T09:34:44+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:54:08 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> I think it is more of a case of being unable to come to consensus than 
> "rejecting" it. (Same effect, ultimately.) Some people feel that Java's 
> version doesn't work very well in practice, leaving to too many "when 
> Some_Exception => null" handlers rather than consideration of why the 
> exceptions are being propagated.

I never understood this. Why Some_Exception is not added to the contract
instead? The rule is simple, if you don't know how to handle it, then
don't.

> That seems like bad software management to 
> me. In any case, any such "contracts" in Ada would have to be optional (for 
> compatibility reasons), and that might actually help reduce the problems.

Unless Storage_Error and Program_Error made manageable contracted
exceptions would have only limited use.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de