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,ec21c3c7cdc7ff3e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Handling invalid objects
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:00:04 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2r74yr96z.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <1142279908.327131.230200@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <hZrRf.3235$x94.1497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4k6axpj1y.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
 <f_qSf.8758$Jz4.2940@trnddc08> <dvdp5g$s8l$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <FJHSf.1898$TK2.497@trnddc07> <F_CdnVk65puA_obZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@megapath.net>
 <41LSf.4126$TK2.1805@trnddc07> <7LOSf.34253$oL.29742@attbi_s71>
 <niWSf.1278$I7.339@trnddc03>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1142765999 14116 62.49.19.209 (19 Mar 2006 10:59:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:59:59 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LBSO40bd3K3PNKQMxshfc1AkCGU=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3447
Date: 2006-03-19T11:00:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq> writes:

> Exception raising and handling is often viewed as writing code that
> will never execute.  Predefined exceptions must be handled when
> there is an expectation they will be raised, but their usefullness
> stops there.  Beyond that, it's like writing erroneous code on
> purpose.

Code that _should_ never execute, perhaps!

Exceptions are for things that can't be handled locally because of
lack of application knowledge. For example, how to handle a
Socket_Error?

And also, I think, for contract violation, where the contract can;t be
enforced in the language. Now we can say 'not null access' but in
Ada95 we can't.

>> There are cases where exceptions are outlawed; most of them are not
>> justified.  Even if they were all justified, advocating a return to
>> the mess that error codes create is not a viable option.
>
> It's a mess regardless.  Clearly Ada is deficient in this respect,
> as all languages seem to be.

I think it's called living in the real world.