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: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Building blocks (Was: Design By Contract)
Date: 1997/09/18
Message-ID: <dewar.874623600@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 273642476
References: <5v34m5$pl9$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>
 <wihnDCAGPDI0IwlD@treetop.demon.co.uk>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iPaul says

<<What is important is the fact that ignoring an exception is not an
option.  DBC requires that a class either fulfil its contract or raise
an exception.  The client class which recieves the exception can either
try again a different way or pass the exception on to its client.
Simply hiding the failure under the carpet is not an option.  The
precise nature of the exception is much less important than its
existance.

Ada allows the programmer to quietly ignore an exception and pretend
that a routine succeeded when in fact it failed.  This is wrong.>>

Paul, can you post a detailed Ada example that shows what you mean
by the last paragraph. Without such an example, it is impossible to
figure out what you think might be "wrong".