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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1592759aa83d0d45 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-28 16:50:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030524 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Suggestion for Ada 200x - Interface inheritance References: <0Pxza.699607$OV.652508@rwcrnsc54> <5ad0dd8a.0305240435.337d9373@posting.google.com> <5ad0dd8a.0305250612.ec54c23@posting.google.com> <3ED1039F.7010001@spam.com> <719Aa.14547$fT5.3595@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 23:50:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.146.112 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1054165815 162.84.146.112 (Wed, 28 May 2003 19:50:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:50:15 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37956 Date: 2003-05-28T23:50:15+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > I think it would be possible to design a > language without those problems. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it, though. I think that there is a fundamental incoherency here - exceptions are designed to be a "long-distance" method of error handling; you throw where the error is noticed, and the closest interested handler gets invoked. This style means that the code in between explicitly does not want to know about the exception, because if it did, then it would have a handler. So forcing the code to declaim all the things in which it is not interested is counterproductive and useless. And as you point out, the problem is even more basic when it comes to generics. Which reminds me that I'll bet this will be another phonied up aspect of generics in Java. Odds are you won't be able to specify the generic parameter in a throws clause.