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,a571dbe59eac7150
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: new language construct proposed
Date: 1998/02/01
Message-ID: <dewar.886366267@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 321162798
References: <34C8E253.7E9F@catalina-inter.net>
  <199801261513.QAA12739@basement.replay.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 886366585 22069 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jeff said

<<I submitted a revision request for this:

raise [exception_name] [when boolean_expression];
>>

This was indeed, as I remember, in one of the earlier mapping documents,
but was discarded as extraneous in the attempt to keep the scope of the
change general.

Tuck always used to demand that we justify each deletion of this kind with
a sound technical argument that there was something wrong with the feature.

In fact that was often not possible, the problem was not that each feature
was unacceptable, but simply that a giant collection of nice to have but
not necessary changes add up to a lot.

In fact, as we discussed at the time, the request is a bit like demanding
to know what is wrong with the particular piece of straw that breaks the
camel's back :-)

As you look back at each of these features, you will find that, taken in
isolation, they all seem reasonable, as does the above suggestion. You
have to look at the context of the entire proposal.

The older mapping documents are available for perusal if you are 
interested.