Re: Ada exception block does NOT work?

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> I do prefer "raise/handle" to "throw/catch", but maybe because
> that's what I'm used to.

Personally I think "catch" is a more descriptive term than "handle". To 
"handle" an exception seems to imply that you do something about it. If 
you write an exception handler that just contains a null statement, to 
ignore exceptions that you really ought to react to, it's doubtful if 
that can be called handling them. Or take an exception handler that 
doesn't do anything about the exception itself, but only deallocates 
some memory or something and then re-raises the exception. Does that 
constitute handling the exception? If the re-raised exception propagates 
out of the program it will be called an unhandled exception.

So exception handlers ought to be called exception catchers. The 
exception catcher catches the exception, and then it's up to the code 
inside the exception catcher to handle the exception, ignore it or pass 
it on.

And if you say that you catch exceptions it's of course natural to also 
say that you throw them.

But this is not in any way important to me. Besides, it would be 
unreasonable to expect that people who invent new concepts will always 
come up with perfect names for them

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu