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,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Building blocks (Was: Design By Contract) Date: 1997/09/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 274887501 Distribution: world References: <5v34m5$pl9$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de> <34215E3D.77AE@gsfc.nasa.gov> <3421E190.49CC@chimu.com> <3423BE13.9C3852A4@munich.netsurf.de> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3423BE13.9C3852A4@munich.netsurf.de> Joachim Durchholz writes: > I don't like the Ada solution either. It is "structured" in that it will > resume execution at the point where the execution occurred, but that's > *very* wrong. The exception handler can't know at which point in the > code the exception occurred (maybe even in a subroutine!), so it can't > know what to do to fix the problem. ??? What do you mean here? Surely it is clear enough that Ada does not support resumption semantics in exception handling. So, you must have something in mind here, but I can't figure out what it is... /Jon -- Jon Anthony STL, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari