From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks
Date: 1999/12/23
Date: 1999-12-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83sb6f$r3g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wcc7li7uhii.fsf@world.std.com
In article <wcc7li7uhii.fsf@world.std.com>,
Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
>
> > All in all, a good rule in Ada 95 is not to use ATC.
>
> Do you feel the same way about abort statements?
>
> To me, abort statements and ATC seem equally error prone.
> I wouldn't go so far as to outlaw either one, but it seems to
me that if
> you want to outlaw ATC, you should also want to outlaw abort
> statements.
Nope! I don't consider them the same. Abort is only to be used
in extreme or error conditions, the trouble with ATC is that
it invites the abort paradigm to be used as a general purpose
control structure. I know that the above supposed equivalence
was used to argue for the inclusion of ATC, but I regard it as
a bogus argument!
It would be like saying that since exceptions are a form of
non-local gotos, that it makes sense to allow general non-local
gotos :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-12-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-12-18 0:00 Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks James S. Rogers
1999-12-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-20 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-27 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox