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,d4b13594b8779b99 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: Improving Ada Exceptions Date: 1997/10/27 Message-ID: <873elnu41d.fsf@mihalis.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 285872727 Sender: cm@mihalis References: <63072n$q6r$1@berlin.infomatch.com> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 26 7:13:16 PM CST 1997 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-26T19:13:16-06:00 List-Id: I think the use of exception objects in C++ is yet another piece of overly complex c++ garbage. Although all kinds of wild and wonderful schemes can be proposed with their use, in fact most sensible exception handling strategies don't need any more facilities than Ada offers (in fact Ada83 exceptions seem good enough), in my experience (your mileage may vary). Leaving theoretical discussion aside I am talking about when you have a particular program or library and consider what possible action you can take in the presence of an exception. When you get specific enough there never seems to be a good reason to mess with the basics. On the other hand I wouldn't mind being proved wrong. Why not modify GNAT on something like Linux and show what is possible in a real system that was not possible before. Or find someone who knows how to hack GNAT and get them to have a go. Chris -- "everything remotely enjoyable turns out to be powerfully addictive and expensive and bad for you" - Lizzy Bryant