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,c80e6f742e73478f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!news.tornevall.net!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ensuring postconditions in the face of exceptions
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:14:18 -0700
Organization: TornevallNET - http://news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <hnm188$rfh$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
References: 
 <820d96c0-5d67-4b8c-8c5b-811ca4f1127e@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 	<8990d686-f703-4e9c-91b7-32410289983d@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 	<87ljdv56gy.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <5f3f45c6-0202-4a67-8517-182afaf7dceb@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <3782da9f-3f92-455e-ac1c-7cab721fc4df@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0f35bb34d81943e535c713f910c41b37
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: ff564e526e1f5225785089d831ee4be2
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tornevall.net
X-Complaints-Language: Spoken language is english or swedish - NOT ITALIAN,
 FRENCH, GERMAN OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE!
In-Reply-To: 
 <3782da9f-3f92-455e-ac1c-7cab721fc4df@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
X-Validate-Post: 
 http://news.tornevall.net/validate.php?trace=ff564e526e1f5225785089d831ee4be2
X-SpeedUI: 1738
X-Complaints-Italiano: Parlo la lingua non � italiano
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
X-Posting-User: 0243687135df8c4b260dd4a9a93c79bd
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9580
Date: 2010-03-15T12:14:18-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> 
> The problem with that approach is that the processing of the Dirty
> flag is no longer localized in the Refresh procedure which, in fact,
> might as well disappear altogether; instead, each caller of Refresh
> (or Visit) must now remember to handle exceptions and reset Dirty to
> True accordingly.

With your code, the only way an exception can be raised is if the input value of 
Dirty is True. Since Dirty is not a parameter of Visit, the call to Visit 
presumably doesn't change Dirty. If so, you could eliminate the exception 
handler and have the desired functionality: Dirty would be True on return if 
there were an exception, and False if there were not. I think this was mentioned 
before. Is there a reason this is not acceptable?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Have you gone berserk? Can't you see that that man is a ni?"
Blazing Saddles
38