From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: workshop on Exception Handling for a 21st Century Programming Language
Date: 2000/10/23
Date: 2000-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccaebv37c0.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8ss9v5$73c$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> For my own taste, I would have said that an unhandled exception
> in a task caused impl defined program termination, then those
> who want the current semantics can have a handler saying
>
> when others => null;
Me, too.
> but if that was done, then you would still need your own
> handler for serious error handling.
Right, but only for *serious* error handling. For run-of-the-mill
desk-top non-embedded programs, killing the program might be just fine.
After all, that's the default behavior you get when you don't have tasks
(by "default" I mean "no handlers").
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-10-19 0:00 workshop on Exception Handling for a 21st Century Programming Language Alexander Romanovsky
2000-10-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2000-10-28 10:49 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox