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: 2001-02-02 14:46:58 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!news.gnac.net!uunet!sac.uu.net!usenet.rational.com!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Computation of exception handling Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:17:15 -0800 Organization: Rational Software Message-ID: <95fblc$nja$1@usenet.rational.com> References: <94jr16$j2q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94ki0n$j4d$1@usenet.rational.com> <94mgqh$suo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ext-3074.rational.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4894 Date: 2001-02-02T14:17:15-08:00 List-Id: Hi again Sandro... Sandro Binetti wrote in message news:94mgqh$suo$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > Do you think I'm using exception handling in an uncorrect way? > How "exceptional" has to be an event, if occurs, to be > considered "algoritmically treated", instead of "exception handled"? > -- > Bye, Sandro I would say: If you depend on exception handleing being fast, this is an implementation dependency. If after that, exceptions are still an option for you, then use them if in your judgement it makes the code easier to understand (or at least, no harder). If it's a just a notational shortcut that makes it easier to write but harder to understand, then I wouldn't use them. But there's nothing wrong with making it easier to write if it doesn't obscure the code. Maybe it makes it easier to write *and* read -- if so, great, use 'em! -- mark