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: 103376,8ed8f00df051b989
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jehamby@lightside.com
Subject: Re: Ada exception limitations
Date: 2000/02/27
Message-ID: <89a1v0$cus$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 590460150
References: <89738j$f27$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <86ln48yr3o.fsf@ppp-111-174.villette.club-internet.fr>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.217.174.211
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 27 02:25:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjehamby
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i686)
Date: 2000-02-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Thanks to you, and the other people who replied, for your suggestions!
I can see now how the limitations of Ada exceptions wouldn't necessarily
have prevented me from implementing a system just as powerful as what I
created using Java exceptions.

-Jake


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.