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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,98c463a9e98cfdf5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-12 15:19:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!newsfeed01.nntp.se.dataphone.net!nntp.se.dataphone.net!news.powertech.no!uninett.no!nntp.uib.no!not-for-mail From: Gisle =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E6lensminde?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada exceptions. unchecked? Date: 12 Jun 2002 22:19:25 GMT Organization: Institutt for Informatikk, UiB Message-ID: References: <8db3d6c8.0206112300.3965a62b@posting.google.com> <3D0750F1.7A12342@raytheon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: apal.ii.uib.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: toralf.uib.no 1023920365 84237 129.177.16.7 (12 Jun 2002 22:19:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uib.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jun 2002 22:19:25 GMT User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.2 (SunOS) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25832 Date: 2002-06-12T22:19:25+00:00 List-Id: In article <3D0750F1.7A12342@raytheon.com>, Mark Johnson wrote: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> >> In article <8db3d6c8.0206112300.3965a62b@posting.google.com>, nma124@hotmail.com (steve_H) writes: >> > I have thought that Ada exceptions were unchecked, is this correct? >> >> What do you mean by "unchecked" ? > > After a quick review of the web site he referenced, I believe he is > referring to the need in Java to either... > - catch the exception > - declare that the exception is thrown > Adding it to Ada at this point would break a lot of code (but also > likely FIX a lot of code when implemented). > --Mark Checked exceptions as in Java is in fact a horrible idea. If you assume that the program is designed with error handling in mind from the start, it could work, but in practice you will discover at some point that some lowlevel error condition the highlevel need to handle. In that case all the methods in the entire call tree need to be changed. If the application is sufficiently large, you simply can't do that. -- Gisle S�lensminde ( gisle@ii.uib.no ) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. (from RFC 1925)