Re: F9X twister & ADA (was: n-dim'l vectors)

["James Giles" <jamesgiles@worldnet.att.net>]

Geoff Bull wrote in message <38F53816.3D1F28A6@research.canon.com.au>...
...
>> I think undocumented exceptions are clearly the ugliest way to
>> accomplish this.
>
>But there is nothing wrong with clearly documented exceptions?

If all the public properties of a procedure are required to be
explicitly declared, then that's sufficient "documentation".  However,
that is exactly the property that you seem to object to.  My
suggestion of using signals instead is in response to your
objections to explicit declarations of all exceptions.  But,
you don't approve of that either.  Is it just the case that you
don't like anything that's different than what you used to?

>> How bare is the hardware?  If it's all
>> *that* bare, it won't support I/O or exceptions either.
>
>Bare = no OS.
>Just the the language defined runtime + your program.

So, signals would still be there if required by the language definition.
They would be in the runtime library for any implementation
written for bare hardware.

--

By the way, I'm surprised you actually saw and read the article you
just responded to.  I never did.  As far as I could tell it was just
swallowed up by the usenet goblins.  I cancelled it before sending
a replacement (which consisted only of the first half).  If anyone
saw several copies or none, sorry.  Who knows.

--
J. Giles