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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc050a66c3b5d87d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,86e8c626be2471ae X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: "James Giles" Subject: Re: F9X twister & ADA (was: n-dim'l vectors) Date: 2000/04/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 610754113 References: <8cctts$ujr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38EA0440.1ECBC158@ncep.noaa.gov> <38ED4ECA.ADB698C9@sdynamix.com> <38F28A85.53809F39@sdynamix.com> <38F2C1DC.5538F9F0@research.canon.com.au> <5jJI4.297$PV.9915@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <38F3D1D3.416B3493@research.canon.com.au> <85SI4.4008$fV.338113@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <38F3F803.A4A56259@research.canon.com.au> <38F41313.DAF90E74@research.canon.com.au> <38F53816.3D1F28A6@research.canon.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 955647481 12.74.2.33 (Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:38:01 GMT) Organization: AT&T Worldnet NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:38:01 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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