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: 103376,98c463a9e98cfdf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-15 16:48:48 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail
From: "AG" <a_n_g@x_t_r_a.c_o.n_z>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <8db3d6c8.0206112300.3965a62b@posting.google.com>
 <FxOlM5HK5mpC@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3D0750F1.7A12342@raytheon.com>
 <slrnagfi7d.t0m.gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> <3D08ABBA.C8AF105@raytheon.com>
 <slrnagko6r.1fs.gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> <x7vu1o48tnf.fsf@pushface.org>
 <SgOO8.4594$iR2.417932@news.xtra.co.nz> <3D0BCFC5.A7B2D4C0@san.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Ada exceptions. unchecked?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <AnQO8.4648$iR2.422056@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:50:17 +1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.86.45.112
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1024184928 210.86.45.112 (Sun,
 16 Jun 2002 11:48:48 NZST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:48:48 NZST
Organization: Xtra
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26049
Date: 2002-06-16T11:50:17+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D0BCFC5.A7B2D4C0@san.rr.com...
> AG wrote:
> > It may not be possible but it would be a good idea if it could be done.
> > After all, if an exception (or, more generally, any result of execution)
> > does not make sense to the caller, what's the point of sending it back?
>
> Because it makes sense to whoever called the caller.

But in that case the caller is just an intermediary which doesn't really
know
or care of what to do with the result (if any) or how to handle the
exceptions.
I guess I meant the "caller" that is the real user of the result, not just
some
pass-through function.

>
> If A calls B, and B calls C, and C throws an except that B doesn't
> understand how to handle (or that didn't even exist when B was compiled)
but
> A does, then A nevertheless cannot conveniently get the exception back in
> Java.

Point taken, but that's just Java problem, isn't it?