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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) Subject: Re: Building blocks (Was: Design By Contract) Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <5v34m5$pl9$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 272591526 Organization: --- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: paul.johnson@gecm.com (Paul Johnson) wrote: > In fact the Eiffel exception mechanism is superior to the Ada one > because it is built on a theoretical model of software engineering. It is only "superior" if you think that Bertrand Meyer's proposed theory about exceptions is the only valid one. I don't think it is - and just to the contrary, I consider something like Eiffel's class EXCEPTION an ugly hack to differentiate between kinds of exceptions. In fact, I think Common Lisp, and later C++ and Java, got it right with using subtyping as a means to differentiate between exception objects and to associate information with exceptions; likewise, as in Modula-3 and Java (similarly C++, as far as I know), I'd like to have a classification of the possible exceptions raised by a routine in its declaration. Lacking that, Ada's solution is still far superiour to Eiffel's approach, in my view. -- Marc Wachowitz