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: a07f3367d7,d1296b1e5055be50
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr1576031pbc.1.1344319721248;
        Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni2688793pbh.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ctu-peer!news.nctu.edu.tw!csnews.cs.nctu.edu.tw!news.cs.nctu.edu.tw!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada folks need to talk to C++ folks more
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:34:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m28ve1m1il.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
References: 
 <6d4fedca-1b2f-476f-a05e-6c379389128b@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="edf2659fbb8cb6d4b5f62db4b36ac1e6";
	logging-data="10737"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xFIxa0irH1C3aKv73hzTpNFYobkX2Kmc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2UEN8KFZTq1Y284iV8FIJREjDMc=
	sha1:pqseI1pMNsvavm5y1Ld/WUgMdwU=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2012-07-30T21:34:26+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

wrp <i3text@gmail.com> writes:

> A recent discussion on undefined behavior with exceptions would have
> benefitted a lot from description of the Ada approach:
>
> http://www.250bpm.com/blog:4

You get the impression that the author's model of how to use exceptions
is somehow broken; I think he'd (mis)use exceptions the same way in Ada!