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: 103376,699cc914522aa7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Structured exception information
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:07:20 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccejpl7pef.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <eog0g5$2bn$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <u7ivnp09z.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eoinoh$855$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <ud55drgzz.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eolaen$b4h$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <ur6trwdov.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <eoqhhm$fjp$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <uac0dyap7.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <wccfya5u07k.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <umz4c9f2z.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <wccr6tot047.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ubqkqdwnv.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1169564840 31194 192.74.137.71 (23 Jan 2007 15:07:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ChmxxGSbpOFASaLnccq3zCkSIrE=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8425
Date: 2007-01-23T10:07:20-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

> So you are saying:
>
> raise My_Exception with <any construct>;
>
> is allowed to become (in effect);
>
> raise Storage_Error;

Yes, precisely.

This is just a special case of the fact that:

<any construct>

is allowed to become (in effect);

raise Storage_Error;

!

> I guess that makes sense, and is true now. I hadn't quite realized that.

Yeah, it pretty much has to be that way, given that we don't know (at the
language level) how much memory is available, nor how much memory is
used up by any given construct.  We don't even really know what "memory"
means -- the implementation could split memory up into stacks, secondary
stacks, heap(s), stacks could be discontiguous, stacks could be
growable -- and the language designer doesn't want to deal with all
that.

Even something as simple as "X := 1;" can, in theory, raise
Storage_Error.  For that matter, I suppose even "null;" can raise
Storage_Error!

- Bob