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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,61e9062c1f23b9d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: contracted exceptions
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:49:46 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2y7is6nc5.fsf@mac.com>
References: <1181165630.012508.55290@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <19fxsxv1god43$.1pqq8vgfu2itn$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ud507n1rt.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net> <wccwsyfa5vf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <f4ae75$jtp$1@jacob-sparre.dk> <gwqsi47pdu2j.89sc0pb9332p$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <uzm3aq130.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net> <s2uary9xul2i.bsehe8l9otx3.dlg@40tude.net>
 <usl92wdyj.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <cdcp1ydis4o7$.185z3b5nusall$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2k5ue8dhk.fsf@mac.com>
 <1it2vtizha2fi$.jxnoaxmm9sop$.dlg@40tude.net> <m27iqd8g04.fsf@mac.com>
 <12vqux55uf5rn.1u5enj1mh0ubk$.dlg@40tude.net> <m23b1096w7.fsf@mac.com>
 <kyiyvo7rv97m$.vy3bfrwvqfem$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1181476187 10430 62.49.19.209 (10 Jun 2007 11:49:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:49:47 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GgGcowR9U+OT1kuYzAn5Lw98JeM=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16145
Date: 2007-06-10T12:49:46+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:04:24 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

>> Also, this check is about a precondition, if the caller violates
>> the precondition she has no right to expect me not to raise
>> unheralded exceptions!
>
> Oh my. "If you don't do that, then I ..." (:-))
>
> No, if the precondition was violated by the caller, then how this
> caller is supposed to handle the exception it does not know? And why
> would you rely on this handling, provided that it is exactly one who
> first violated the contract?

How is the callee supposed to handle the contract violation? The whole
program is unsafe.