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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1e4bb63e08046e1a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-24 13:06:29 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: is exception when others => null; smart? User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:06:10 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3DB8204B.2080804@attbi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30109 Date: 2002-10-24T20:06:10+00:00 List-Id: Mark Biggar writes: > Probably not. If you want the opposite policy change it to: > > when others => raise; But that's what happens when you don't have an exception handler at all! It seems to me that editors that automatically generate procedure body templates should *not* insert exception handlers. It's not helpful -- 99% of the time, the user will have to delete the thing. And furthermore, there is no sensible "default" code to put in the handler. "Raise;" is better than "null;", but neither one is usually what you want. - Bob