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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387311123 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: spark19.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <6sjms6$7c4$1@hirame.wwa.com> Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Patrick Logan wrote: >In comp.object Patrick Doyle wrote: > >: By this logic, polymorphism is indeterminate too. When you call a >: polymorphic function, you have no idea where control will >: wind up. This is a Good Thing. It's what makes polymorphism >: powerful: the fact that you're giving someone else some control >: over the situation makes your code flexible. > >These are apples and oranges. Why the comparison? Merely to point out that not knowing the distination of a transfer of control does not make for a strong argument against exceptions. If it did, it should apply to polymorphism too. -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.toronto.edu