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: 103376,631686271a29a357
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Common Error/Exception Handler
Date: 1996/04/19
Message-ID: <Dq4p9v.Jv3@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 150391531
references: <4l8d5i$31g@news.sanders.lockheed.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4l8d5i$31g@news.sanders.lockheed.com>,
John Cupak  <jcupak@isd99.sanders.lockheed.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be possible with the Ada 95 exception mechanisms to create a
>package of standard exceptions and a common error message procedure,
>import/rename the exceptions where appropriate, and let the common error
>message procedure take care of the details? 

I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem desirable.  The abstraction
in question ought to define what sort of things are errors, and what
exceptions are therefore raised.  Clients can then decide how to handle
those errors.  Why do you think this information ought to be more
global?

- Bob