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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b3f788f59498d3af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Exceptions and out procedure arguments (using GNAT GPL)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:40:31 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <f59ibv$5ep$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <79c673pq5htg508nkoi935n3udqg5ps7r8@4ax.com>
 <1182181497.595409.300500@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <drle731ukcmhlt5km966imoudr5s92napd@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1182289087 5593 69.95.181.76 (19 Jun 2007 21:38:07
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:38:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16247
Date: 2007-06-19T16:40:31-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Fionn Mac Cumhaill" <invisible@hiding.from.spam> wrote in message
news:drle731ukcmhlt5km966imoudr5s92napd@4ax.com...
...
> I eliminated the problem by modifying the offending procedure to not
> raise exceptions. It now returns a status code in an additional out
> argument.

My initial reaction to this was that it is like cutting off your foot
because your toe itches. ;-)

But I do have to agree with Adam that there is something wrong with the
design if you are expecting to get results back even if an exception is
raised. That does seem to be inappropriate use of an exception; it's not an
error at all if you expect results (it's just another normal case).

Still, in general result codes make me ill, so I would be at least as
concerned about a design that seems to be combining two operations (one to
return the initial results, and one to make the checks that lead to errors).

                         Randy.