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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada/UNIX(tm) and the NAME function
Message-ID: <804@primus.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 3 Jan 89 15:19:13 GMT
References: <920005@hpcljws.HP.COM> <8069@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: firth@sei.cmu.edu's message of 21 Dec 88 19:43:16 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <8069@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

   No: the fact that it is required to raise an exception does not imply
   (here or elsewhere) that it is forbidden to raise any otehr exception.

This sounds dangerous to me; I have always assumed that the
pre-defined packages behaved _precisely_ as specified in the LRM,
_including_ which exceptions may be raised. Thus, if the LRM does not
state that a particular routine may raise an exception, it should not
do so. This is critical in writting exception handlers; we have to
know which exceptions a routine may raise in order to handle them all.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899