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: 103376,61e9062c1f23b9d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps82.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@METROID
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: contracted exceptions
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$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2y7is6nc5.fsf@mac.com>
 <lmg98mzw0o50.1txm4j8o5ek2s$.dlg@40tude.net>
From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Message-ID: <umyz79lhh.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Organization: The Transcend
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:13:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.20.94.243
X-Trace: edtnps82 1181535232 154.20.94.243 (Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:13:52 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:13:52 MDT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16150
Date: 2007-06-11T04:13:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> Right, this is why continuation in any form, including raising exceptions,
> is unsafe. There must be an independent program [a judge] to handle the
> case.

What to do depends on the program in question. A quiet quick death would be
the worst thing to do for a common office-like desktop application.

At the very least it should report to the user some indication of the problem,
along with an email to send bug reports to. It would be more user friendly to
at least stay alive, giving the user a change to salvage some sort of work
they were doing. Sure, things could be theoretically corrupted, but contrast
that with the clear certainty of losing all of one's work and the tradeoff
points become quite clear.

Do to absolutely nothing, leaving it up to some external judge/debugger
program, is in practice completely ridiculous.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.