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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4190027f6de5b93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-26 12:21:20 PST From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Computation of exception handling Date: 26 Jan 2001 21:12:15 +0100 Organization: Enyo's not your organization Message-ID: <87ofwu2huo.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <94jr16$j2q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94ki0n$j4d$1@usenet.rational.com> <3a6ef4d9$1@pull.gecm.com> <3a7188ec$1@pull.gecm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!feeder.qis.net!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!blackbush.xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-ulm.de!news.belwue.de!LF.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4572 Date: 2001-01-26T21:12:15+01:00 List-Id: "Martin Dowie" writes: > > There is nothing wrong. This is _strictly_ equivalent to raising > > an exception with the same identifier, at least at formal level. > > The difference is _strictly_ syntactic. More often, the program is > > simply less complex with exceptions that with report codes. > but you can't use exceptions if your system has to be 'safe' (no > mention of that in the original question). The problem without exceptions is that people forget to check for error conditions. (C programmers using the POSIX API make this mistake quite often.)