Re: I am not understanding user defined exceptions

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@TheWorld.com>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> (4) <rant> GNAT effectively nullifying a carefully considered and heavily 
> debated decision in the ARG because a couple of people didn't like it is 
> about the most evil behavior that an implementer could take. ...

First of all, compiler vendors can provide whatever extensions they
like, and there's nothing "evil" about that.  If you don't want to
use extensions, don't, and select the options that give you an
error if you use extensions by accident.

GNAT fully supports the standard Static_Predicate and Dynamic_Predicate.

Second of all, if I remember the history correctly, GNAT implemented
this feature as originally designed, which was Predicate.  Then ARG
stepped in and changed that design, so GNAT implemented the other
two attributes.  It seems perfectly reasonable to me to also keep
the Predicate aspect, since people were already using it.

> You're just plain wrong, considering that we discussed this extensively in 
> the ARG and the "maintenance is important" position carried the day. The 
> flaw is that you can't declare most things static to avoid future problems.

Sorry, but majority rule doesn't prove that anyone is "just plain
wrong".  I realize my opinion is in the minority (of ARG anyway),
but I still think I'm right on this point.  (Of course I do -- if
I thought I was wrong, I would change my mind!)

You are using sophistry when you say "maintenance is important".
Of course I agree that maintenance is important; characterizing
my opinion as anti-maintenance is "just plain wrong".  ;-)

- Bob