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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fac1372a6e25492a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks
Date: 1999/12/23
Message-ID: <83sb6f$r3g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 564010549
References: <83hu2h$bba$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
 <83j1g0$ck4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <wcc7li7uhii.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 23 05:16:01 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-12-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.