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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b2046241520981f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-27 17:23:26 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!216.166.71.14!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:23:23 -0500
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:23:45 -0500
From: Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@myrealbox.com>
Reply-To: wesgroleau@myrealbox.com
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 0x, exception idea ?
References: <3F229597.3090909@myob.com>
 <mailman.5.1059306172.320.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1059306172.320.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <LGadnTxRQ9xh8bmiU-KYvg@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.129
X-Trace: 
 sv3-2eE47Kk/WSK66KwwexS+5jZLlyyRglbr9gJheFvs+1ro+9SCZvBSgQsYD8vVJoNY23qO0TDjbkVuigD!MEWAcPRJlm46nP/NSYt2cPiN5mO0h3wLMt/PgUvRV3zhumKFJbU3KL/BBNB0pvWeXVvsLQOo4zsn!1r/8yw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40881
Date: 2003-07-27T19:23:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

sk wrote:
> wesgroleau@myrealbox.com :
>  > case C_function (params) is
>  >
>  >   when 0        => null; -- success
>  >   when Bummer   => raise Its_a_Bummer;
>  >   when Darn     => raise Darn_it;
>  >   when Blast    => raise Blast_It;
>  >   when Disaster => raise Program_Error;
>  >
> This still seems a bit "visually-bulky" (for want
> of a better expression) but interesting and cleaner
> than possible pages of "if-then-elsif" before
> resuming with the original purpose of the algorithm.

Why is the above (which works now) more "bulky"
than the requested

    raise Its_A_Bummer when Result = Bummer;
    raise Darn_It      when Result = Darn;
    raise Blast_It     when Result = Blast;

etc.

??