Re: I am not understanding user defined exceptions

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Robert A Duff"wrote in message 
> news:wccfujnf042.fsf...
> > "Randy Brukardt" writes:
> >
> >> Most likely:
> >>
> >>      X : Integer := ...; -- Static constant
> >>      X : constant Integer := ...; -- Non-static constant
> >>      X : variable Integer := ...; -- Variable.
> >>
> >> Since the default should be the safest thing.
> >
> > Well, at least we agree on one thing.  It's odd that Ada got it right
> > for parameters ('in' is the default), but got it wrong for object
> > declarations (variable is the default).
> >
> > I'd be happy with:
> >
> >     X : Integer := ...; -- constant
> >     X : var Integer := ...; -- variable
> 
> (1) Ada doesn't generally use abbreviations, thus "var" isn't a likely 
> keyword.
> 
> (2) It's important that all properties that clients can depend upon are 
> declarable, so clients aren't depending on accidental properties. (That's 
> the whole principle behind private types.) Static is such a property, so it 
> should be declarable (not necessarily have to be declared in all cases). 
> [Indeed, it should be possible to declare static private types - a whole 
> different kettle of fish.] Similarly, it would be nice if there was a way to 
> prevent people from depending upon the subtype profile of a subprogram (so 
> that it can later be changed if necessary). There's probably other such 
> properties (one would like to include formal parameter names in this sort of 
> restriction, but that would prevent named calls which would be evil.)
> 
>                                   Randy.

Randy, have you any experience with VHDL?
Some of what you're saying seems to have been done in VHDL.