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: 103376,790d824907970cc3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough)
Subject: Re: Exception Propagation
Date: 1999/06/15
Message-ID: <dale-1506990947560001@dale.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 489637354
References: <7jjbl4$n79$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <b3T63.5112$y6.2934699@WReNphoon3>
 <7jh857$ej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <375CC549.7EDFB885@spam.com>
 <0nc73.5376$y6.3195132@WReNphoon3> <7jlud1$l76$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <wccd7yyrgfu.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.rmit.edu.au
X-Trace: emu.cs.rmit.edu.au 929404087 7468 144.205.16.58 (14 Jun 1999 23:48:07
 GMT)
Organization: RMIT
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jun 1999 23:48:07 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-14T23:48:07+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

" The rules for exactly what
  happens when are way too complicated (I wrote them), and they're
  extremely difficult to implement efficiently.  I think it would have
  been better if the default behavior for Finalize would be to kill the
  program; if the programmer wants some other behavior, write a handler."


I've noticed a number of times that you have had second thoughts on some
of the design decisions you made (or maybe Robert Dewar did :-). I was
wondering if you have in mind a better process for establishing standards,
so that the problems described above wouldn't result?


Dale