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: 103376,7d3cb5920e882220 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!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Exceptions Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:48:02 -0600 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: References: <5947aa62-2547-4fbb-bc46-1111b4a0dcc9@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <475c6ed8$0$13111$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <1kxk3hlfa25dw$.fl2wvbn0tpbg$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1197600265 3969 69.95.181.76 (14 Dec 2007 02:44:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:44:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18937 Date: 2007-12-13T20:48:02-06:00 List-Id: "Ray Blaak" wrote in message news:uzlwe5c7t.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net... > "Randy Brukardt" writes: ... > > Moreover, the temptation is overwhelming to use the unchecked kind > > everywhere, because it is less hassle and the checked kind doesn't buy that > > much anyway (it doesn't guarentee that all exceptions are handled, but only > > the rare few that are declared checked). > > I see nothing wrong with following that temptation. Following that temptation > saves time. > > Basically, the effort at trying to statically prove that all exceptions are > handled is a waste of time. Even if the language supports checked exceptions, > unchecked ones can still leak through. That was my point; ther language *should not have* unchecked exceptions if it is going to bother with any checking. Then there is no possibility of "sneaking through" (modulo compiler or hardware bugs). Yes, you'd have to declare Storage_Error on (nearly) every routine (and I think that is a good thing in such an environment). Such a language would require substantial static analysis at compile-time (but that is practical these days), and would be a lot closer to the promise of "no bugs if it compiles" (Ada already gets quite a bit of the way there). Still I have to wonder if many people would want to use such a language (writing code is necessarily harder), and even if they did, if anyone could stand the language definition effort. Randy.