Re: new revision ada

[Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>]

Simon Wright wrote:
> Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:
> 
> 
>>If you want to try to recover from an error condition (as opposed to
>>simply displaying/logging an error and failing) you often need to
>>have detailed information on what was going on when the error
>>occurred.
>>
>>eg. ENGINE_FAILED(Number=>1, RPM=>xxxx,
>>Occurred=>After_Switching_Fuel_Tanks) is a lot more informative then
>>ENGINE_FAILURE and allows some sort of recovery process (eg. switch
>>back to the previous fuel tank) instead of trying to guess
>>information that was already known. (disclaimer: I haven't written
>>such an application...)
> 
> 
> This is fairly top-of-the-head stuff, but .. if you have an engine
> management system, you had better design it to cope with engine
> failure too. I just don't believe that a simple out-of-band thing like
> an exception (even if decorated like this) can possibly provide a
> mechanism for dealing with complex application-level handling of error
> conditions.
> 
> If the engine fails while you're at the end of the runway, that's one
> thing; if it fails mid-Atlantic that's quite another.

If it fails at the end of the runway on takeoff, that's probably worse 
than mid-Atlantic!

--Larry