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: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Help with Exceptions! Date: 1996/05/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 155025220 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4mmimq$s4r@hatathli.csulb.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article , > Jon S Anthony wrote: > >This is a nice trick which allows you to approximate Eiffel style > >exception capabilities. > > I don't like Eiffel's exception capabilities. The "retry" feature is > just a loop implemented with a goto (i.e. "retry" is really a backward > goto). I much prefer the Ada style, where you explicitly code a loop > statement, and put a block-statement-with-exception-handler inside that. Hmmm, just goes to show how people can differ. I don't think that Eiffel exception capabilities are as flexible as Ada's, but you can make a reasonable argument that that is a "good thing". > Eiffel has some nice features for asserting things about loops (loop > invariants, and loop variants -- the latter helps prove that the loop > terminates in a finite number of steps). But the retry construct seems > to by-pass all that -- how does one prove that a retry will ever > terminate? In general? You can't. It's not magic. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com