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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!nike!cad!ucbvax!NADC!prindle
From: prindle@NADC
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: re: propogation of exceptions
Message-ID: <8606061349.AA05201@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Jun-86 08:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606061349.AA05201
Posted: Fri Jun  6 08:40:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 14:22:31 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

True, if a task running independently is completed due to an unhandled
exception, that is the end of the line. But if a task is running because it
is engaged in a rendezvous, then the exception *is* propogated, not to the
task's parent, but to the calling task, just as in a subprogram call.

This is indicated in 11.5(a) of the LRM.

If a task must notify it's parent, it had better handle all anticipated
exceptions and utilize a user-defined method of error notification (e.g. a
call to an entry of an error task which maintains a global database of the
health of various tasks).

Frank Prindle
Prindle@NADC.arpa