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: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats.Weber@matrix.ch (Mats Weber)
Subject: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ?
Date: 1995/04/06
Message-ID: <Mats.Weber-0604952027340001@mlma11.matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100939410
sender: usenet@eunet.ch
references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk> <3l1mgn$ppb@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <Mats.Weber-3103951843080001@mlma11.matrix.ch> <3ls5v8$nma@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
organization: ELCA Matrix SA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3ls5v8$nma@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> Mats, the Posix design for error identification works perfectly well
> in the multi-tasking situation (could you really think they had 
> neglected this obvious point ...)

Of course not. But then, how is it done, since there are no task
identifications in Ada 83 ?