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, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f92fbb4a0420dd57 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) Subject: Re: some questions re. Ada/GNAT from a C++/GCC user Date: 1996/04/02 Message-ID: <4jredu$17vn@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145433357 distribution: world references: <4jhe1v$m0g@dayuc.dayton.saic.com> <4jp17p$17vn@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <3160B2F1.260D@mcs.com> organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3160B2F1.260D@mcs.com>, Mike Young writes: |> This appears somewhat frightening to me, that I might catch exceptions |> from unknown and unspecified source at any given moment. What exactly |> should I do with this exception aside from terminating? (How is this |> different from SIGCHLD?) This might have the right intuitive feel if |> this behavior applied up until some known point where parent and child |> parts ways, but what point would that be? You are right, this is frightening. That is why--as you'll see if you reread the preceding discussion carefully--this alternative (which I called approach (b) in article <4jp17p$17vn@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>) was rejected in the design of Ada. -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com