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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: The future of Spark . Spark 2014 : a wreckage
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:16:29 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <w30s4q4tdrue$.1q2ek7n0im2ba$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <d84b2eb2-eab3-4dec-917c-0498473c1e93@googlegroups.com>
 <krfb56$332$1@loke.gir.dk> <1vc73wjwkqmnl$.gx86xaqy60u4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <krhs9n$65h$1@loke.gir.dk> <6pqhcwi0wuop.15v6h3g7gkto4.dlg@40tude.net>
 <krkq9u$fo9$1@loke.gir.dk> <1s6sw93u97355$.1n0205ucj6251.dlg@40tude.net>
 <krnbig$jl6$1@loke.gir.dk> <1lhsyg46iz9jj.8jrvydqxt8l6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <krprnk$mib$1@loke.gir.dk> <1d4tuwlfdnz2j$.18l68s96x3vjj.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ks2375$q93$1@loke.gir.dk> <1rjye7dyn3vgk.66fbcca9y4zd.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ks4gin$qus$1@loke.gir.dk> <1awbjaens2vca$.1asmpnthmmycl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ks7978$47h$1@loke.gir.dk> <17i525dc26pat$.1octlzd41c8zm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ksafhp$o1m$1@loke.gir.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: IenaDxMXK2hi7fvYcb+MlQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16426
Date: 2013-07-19T09:16:29+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:32:57 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>> It won't be any more complex than it is when handling exceptions
>> propagating out of Open. In fact it will be much simpler because you 
>> forgot the issue of closing the file on subsequent errors.
> 
> I've never had the slightest "issue" with closing the file at the end. And 
> certainly, there aren't "subsequent errors", because either the file gets 
> opened eventually, or the whole routine is aborted (usually, the entire 
> program is halted at the point, since failure to be able to write results --  
> no one needs to calculate results if you can't save them).

I meant I/O errors and more elaborated cases like sockets. If you open a
socket file you should bind it, set options which may fail as well. Code
that does not use controlled wrappers look very ugly.

It is *always* a much better design when the object maintains a state
invariant (e.g. file is open). Provability of such code is a nice
byproduct.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de