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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b2046241520981f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-28 04:24:37 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stueberl.de!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: sk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 0x, exception idea ? Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 06:24:41 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: References: <3F229597.3090909@myob.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1059391476 46147 137.194.161.2 (28 Jul 2003 11:24:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:24:36 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020828 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40896 Date: 2003-07-28T06:24:41-05:00 strohm@airmail.net: > Would you please clarify? Yes, the post you were replying to suggested parsing the string message attached to an exception to evaluate an error code provided in the message by Raise_Exception, hence my response of "Yuck" wesgroleau@myrealbox.com: > Why is the above (which works now) more "bulky" ... After a brief play with it, I agree, the "case-and-raise" syntax is a lot more elegent than a big "if-then-elsif". However, > case Error_Type'Value(Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Message(E)) is > when 1 => > Handle_Error_One; quickly wanders into the realms of the unreadable. strohm@airmail.net: > Observe that you get PRECISELY the same result with > if Result = Bummer then raise Its_A_Bummer; end if; > if Result = Darn then raise Darn_It; end if; > if Result = Blast then raise Blast_It; end if; Again, the issue isn't results, it is readability. hyrosen@mail.com: > Perhaps the OP has fallen under the allure of Perl, Haha, whenever I run across Perl, I run away and can happily claim no base Perl motives :-) -- This thread has diverged ... 1) concerning the simple addition to a "raise" statement. 2) the usage of Ada.Exceptions and carrying around of error codes. As far as the second issue goes, I have no real concerns one way or another. However, for the first issue, I stand by the idea that a conditional raise statement enhances readability. -- PS. If you stop and think about it, the whole exception raising and handling is "syntactic sugar" anyway. To raise an exception, code has to be in place to detect that a requested operation cannot complete without breaking the boundaries/parameters/context of the requestor. The "raise" and subsequent handlers are a shorthand, provided by the language, to ensure that all the necessary checks are implemented rather than relying on the coders diligence to implement them. -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m -------------------------------------------------