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: 103376,8ed8f00df051b989
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Ada exception limitations
Date: 2000/02/26
Message-ID: <86ln48yr3o.fsf@ppp-111-174.villette.club-internet.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 590261925
References: <89738j$f27$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Trace: front2.grolier.fr 951575058 13695 194.158.111.174 (26 Feb 2000
 14:24:18 GMT)
Organization: Club-Internet (France)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Feb 2000 14:24:18 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-26T14:24:18+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

jehamby@lightside.com writes:
> [...] My question is: have any attempts been made to update the standard
> to make Ada exception handling more like C++ or Java?  Does GNAT
> offer any extended capabilities in this area?

As you found out, the Ada language designers ruled out the possibility
of attaching data to an exception, they felt that a string was enough
for most uses, and since an implementations is allowed to place a
static restriction on the length of the string, it can be efficient
(and trouble free from a semantic point of view, no risk of having the
exception object constructor raising an exception, etc..).

In one project I'm working on, we use exceptions when we find out some
problem with the user input, and the last layer is expected to report
a clear and informative message to the user, and this means that the
length of the message is likely to exceed the built-in limit for
excepion message length of our compiler (GNAT with support from ACT
Europe).

We handle the issue with a dedicated "Errors" package that provide
three entry points:

procedure Error (Message : in String);
procedure Error (E : in Exception_Occurrence; Message : in String);

procedure Purge_Error (E : in Exception_Occurrence;
                       X : out Some_Stack_Of_String_Data_Structure);

The idea is that when there is a problem, the code calls 

if Ooops then
   Error ("aie aie aie");
end if;

which allocates an internal id, store the message in a table
indexed by the id, and raise an exception with the id encoded in it.
You can add context during the propagation by calling the second entry
point:

exception
   when E : others => Error (E, "problem while computing stuff");

If Error finds the id in E, then it appends the message, otherwise it
creates a new id, store the compiler message as first entry (prefixed
with "internal error"), and raises the exception with the encoded id.

Purge_Error is used by the top layer to get the message to the user
(it could be a disk log), and has the effect of freeing data
associated with the exception. If you don't purge, you'll leak some
memory.

You'll have not to forget protecting the error data against concurrent
access in a multitasking environment. If you're working in a
distributed Annex E setup, you might have to encode node information
in the message, otherwise, you can extend your communication protocol
to transmit the exception information and continue propagation on the
receiving side.

Note that the main assumption here is that you use exception for
*exceptional* and unpredictable cases. (There is only one place in our
code where we recover from an exception, and it is for covering up
known numerical instabilities.)  The rule we follow is that if there
are likely error outcomes, we use an explicit output or result
parameter for it, not exceptions. Note that this helps debugging
because when we're after a problem, the first exception raised points
directly to the problem.

Your mileage may vary.

Hope this helps,

--LG