Re: Division by zero

[Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>]

Lurker wrote:

> Sorry, that doesn't qualify. In my case there was no redifinition
> of "/" function. Compiler, of course, knows that since it has to
> resolve the reference anyway. So it did know that the "/" in
> question was your regular pre-defined division. Since it knows
> that, then the only reason to allow that to pass would be for
> intentional exception raising. But as someone else pointed
> out you can just go ahead and use "raise exception" statement
> if you really want that. Basically, it seems to me very hard to
> think of a situation where that division would be a bona-fide,
> intended thing.

I suppose a compiler could tell if "/" had been redefined for a type, 
and produce warnings only in the case where it had not, but I don't know 
of any compilers that do.

There are situations where exceptions are not allowed by local rules, 
and some people will always try to find ways around such rules, but in 
general I'd expect a raise statement in most cases.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Blessed are they who convert their neighbors'
oxen, for they shall inhibit their girth."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
83