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_50,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!ada-uts!stt
From: stt@ada-uts
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Exception handling question
Message-ID: <4700080@ada-uts>
Date: Fri, 24-Oct-86 19:24:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.4700080
Posted: Fri Oct 24 19:24:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 01:31:51 EST
References: <10377@cca.UUCP>
Nf-ID: #R:cca.UUCP:-1037700:ada-uts:4700080:000:456
Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    Oct 24 18:24:00 1986
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I don't agree with your conclusion.  Things are generally legal
if not specifically disallowed in cases like this, so
"raise;" inside of a nested block, loop, if, case, etc. is perfectly
legal.  It is only illegal when inside a nested unit/accept statement.
Similar rules apply to return, exit <name>, etc., and these
are certainly legal inside nested blocks (see 5.7, 5.8, 5.9).

S. Tucker Taft
c/o Intermetrics, Inc.
733 Concord Ave
Cambridge, MA  02138