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-Thread: a07f3367d7,468faeb0abcd305e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.219.146 with SMTP id hu18mr4891806qab.3.1364673711886;
        Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.116.165 with SMTP id jx5mr456669qeb.22.1364673711869;
 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 v17ni6816qad.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no18019479qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.0.242.94;
 posting-account=-WG8VgoAAAAlWewKFi0J7zSTMYXZyyK3
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.0.242.94
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b3e88b76-2d2e-45e3-abeb-823f82971252@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Extended Exceptions and other tweaks.
From: Diogenes <phathax0r@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-03-30T13:01:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

First of all...thanks to everyone who have given me pointers on my initial =
runtime hacking experiments. I'm really trucking now.

Currently, just to gain some experience in this area, I building my own run=
time targeted to the Native platform, but using a much more rigorous proces=
s. Using the Spark tools, unit testing everything, etc...

Since I'm working on the Ada Exceptions mechanism, I began to wonder if it =
might not make sense to add security related exceptions as a possible exten=
sion. I have ACLs going on one machine here, and of course Caps going on ot=
hers.

Would something like this be useful to the community, or would it be too mu=
ch? Since a security related exception does not necessarily indicate an err=
or in the program itself; it could indicate a conflict with the policy set =
up by a System Administrator. Seems like it might be prudent to indicate th=
at explicitly.

Are there any other tweaks or extensions that people might find useful?

Diogenes