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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,98c463a9e98cfdf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-15 14:25:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!west.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!enterprise!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail
From: "AG" <a_n_g@x_t_r_a.c_o.n_z>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <8db3d6c8.0206112300.3965a62b@posting.google.com>
 <FxOlM5HK5mpC@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3D0750F1.7A12342@raytheon.com>
 <slrnagfi7d.t0m.gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> <3D08ABBA.C8AF105@raytheon.com>
 <slrnagko6r.1fs.gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> <x7vu1o48tnf.fsf@pushface.org>
Subject: Re: Ada exceptions. unchecked?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <SgOO8.4594$iR2.417932@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:26:34 +1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.55.38.202
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1024176306 210.55.38.202 (Sun,
 16 Jun 2002 09:25:06 NZST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:25:06 NZST
Organization: Xtra
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26038
Date: 2002-06-16T09:26:34+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
news:x7vu1o48tnf.fsf@pushface.org...
> Gisle S�lensminde <gisle@apal.ii.uib.no> writes:
>
> > The problem is that exception handling at one layer possibly must be
> > handled in parts of the program where it does not make sense, and
> > that make programmers to do such code "to get the job done". My
> > point is that the strictness of java exceptions is
> > counter-productive.
>
> I suppose it's not possible to insist that people never propagate
> exceptions that don't make sense in their caller's world view?

It may not be possible but it would be a good idea if it could be done.
After all, if an exception (or, more generally, any result of execution)
does not make sense to the caller, what's the point of sending it back?