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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ae3917578e081022
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: workshop on Exception Handling for a 21st Century Programming
 Language
Date: 2000/10/23
Message-ID: <wccaebv37c0.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 684843753
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <a04310106b6123c982e2b@[128.240.150.152]>
 <8ss9v5$73c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-10-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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