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,deeb88b0e7eede4f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Help with Exceptions!
Date: 1996/05/14
Message-ID: <DrEB77.Kwu@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 154747890
references: <4mmimq$s4r@hatathli.csulb.edu> <319764DA.3A8C@io.com>
 <EACHUS.96May13172506@spectre.mitre.org>
 <gauthier-1405960958270001@164.81.60.62>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <gauthier-1405960958270001@164.81.60.62>,
Michel Gauthier <gauthier@unilim.fr> wrote:
>...So, I
>teach the 
>rule : for a label, a program end or an exception handler, always establish a 
>complete list of all gotos or raises and attach the corresponding assertion.

This makes good sense for labels/goto's, but I don't think it is
reasonable for exception handlers.  The whole point of exception
handling is that the code detecting the error, and the code handling the
error are separated from each other, and need not know about each other.

- Bob