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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-25 04:40:01 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail
From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ?
Date: 25 Mar 1995 06:40:01 -0600
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services   +1 713 968 5800
Message-ID: <3l12v1$9ga@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk>
 <gauthier-2403951115540001@164.81.60.62> <D5z3sF.1ou@nntpa.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com
Date: 1995-03-25T06:40:01-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <D5z3sF.1ou@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Kenneth Almquist <ka@socrates.hr.att.com> wrote:
>An example of something that the Ada 83 exception mechanism did not handle
>well is binding UNIX system calls to Ada.  POSIX.5 maps all system call
>errors into a single exception named POSIX_Error, and provides a per-task
>error code variable.  This is dangerous.  Consider the following C code:
>
>[snip]
>
>Have I missed overlooked any possibilities?
>Was this problem (making UNIX bindings to Ada) discussed during the Ada 9X
>revision process?

Look at the GNAT file i-cpoerr.ads (Interfaces.C.Posix_Error).  It's
in there.

(I think it _solves_ the problem, but doesn't answer your concerns)

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)