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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1901f265c928a511
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s01.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040608
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: new revision ada
References: <sa4r7s9hkp6.fsf_-_@snoopy.apana.org.au>
 <MxrBc.125243$3x.100303@attbi_s54> <sa4hdt4o59y.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
 <x7vy8mfibjz.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
In-Reply-To: <x7vy8mfibjz.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Tt4Cc.161958$Ly.140279@attbi_s01>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.185.48
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s01 1087951859 24.1.185.48 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:59 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:59 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:59 GMT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1796
Date: 2004-06-23T00:50:59+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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