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-Thread: 103376,ee1a8b8db84c88f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newspeer2.se.telia.net!se.telia.net!masternews.telia.net.!newsb.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Persson?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada exception block does NOT work? References: <4301ab29$0$6989$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:12:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.116.179 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsb.telia.net 1124586726 217.209.116.179 (Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:12:06 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:12:06 CEST Organization: Telia Internet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4231 Date: 2005-08-21T01:12:06+00:00 List-Id: 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